Ruling MP respects President’s office but withholds thanks to Shahabuddin

Ruling MP respects President’s office but withholds thanks to Shahabuddin
Photo: PMO

Online Desk

Published: 2026-04-29 18:46:58

A ruling party whip has drawn a sharp distinction between the office of the President and the individual holding it, telling Parliament he respects the institution but could not extend personal thanks to President Mohammed Shahabuddin Chuppu.

Lakshmipur-4 MP ABM Ashraf Uddin Nizan made the remarks on Wednesday during a debate on a thanksgiving motion on the President’s speech. Framing his comments around the July uprising, he said he had made a promise to grieving families in his constituency.

“I have promised their mothers that the chair of the President must be honoured. I thank the chair. However, I regret that I could not thank Honourable President Mohammed Shahabuddin Chuppu as an individual,” he said.

Recounting the unrest, ABM Ashraf Uddin Nizan claimed that rumours spread about people hiding inside the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, leading to rooms being broken open. He alleged that large sums of money were discovered inside the complex.

He also claimed that bricks were removed from Ganabhaban during the same period of turmoil.

The whip rejected suggestions that political parties were behind the events. He said leaders of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami, as well as families of those killed, were not involved. “It was rather an outburst of anger from ordinary people, including rickshaw pullers and workers,” he said.

Turning to parliamentary history, ABM Ashraf Uddin Nizan criticised the tone of debate during the ninth Parliament. He alleged that derogatory remarks had been directed at the then Leader of the Opposition Khaleda Zia inside the House.

He further claimed that, under then Leader of the House Sheikh Hasina, members of the treasury bench were encouraged to make offensive comments against opposition figures. “Despite all that, we continued to remain in Parliament,” he said.

His remarks added a pointed political note to the debate, blending personal reflection, criticism of past conduct, and a clear distinction between respect for state institutions and those who lead them.