Falsehoods and Facebook: Fact-Check Debunks Claims on Interim Government Legality
A claim circulating on social media, alleging that the Supreme Court under former Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan did not legitimize the interim government, has been debunked by the fact-checking and media research team BanglaFact under the Press Institute of Bangladesh (PIB). The rumor was reportedly spread from a verified Facebook profile linked to the banned political party Bangladesh Awami League, and amplified by the party president’s son.
According to BanglaFact, the misinformation was based on the list of 626 individuals published by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) who had taken refuge in cantonments following the student-popular uprising on August 5 that toppled the Sheikh Hasina government. The list, released on Thursday night, included Justice Obaidul Hassan at number 17 and Justice M Enayetur Rahim at number 18.
Supporters sympathetic to the Awami League circulated the list, asserting that “since the Chief Justice was inside the cantonment after August 5, the claim that the caretaker government received Supreme Court approval under Article 106 of the Constitution is entirely false and fabricated.” This assertion, however, is not supported by evidence.
Investigations by BanglaFact found that on Thursday, August 8, the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan held a virtual hearing and issued a ruling that affirmed the legality of the caretaker government. “To prevent future legal challenges about the swearing-in of the interim administration, the Supreme Court provided its endorsement,” the investigation cited from media reports.
The hearing, which lasted about an hour, concluded with a 17-page ruling in favor of the government’s constitutional standing. Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman represented the state, and the ruling clarified that “in the absence of a parliament, an interim government may be formed with a Chief Adviser and selected Advisers,” as per Article 106.
Since the ruling was delivered via a virtual hearing, Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan’s physical location—whether within a cantonment or elsewhere—did not impede the court’s authority to issue the opinion.
However, on August 10, Justice Hassan convened a full court meeting with justices from both the Appellate and High Court Divisions. This action was branded “conspiratorial” by student-led anti-discrimination protest groups, who subsequently besieged the High Court premises. Faced with an ultimatum, Justice Hassan resigned and canceled the meeting (BBC).
Therefore, records confirm that Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan was still serving in his official capacity as of August 10, effectively dispelling claims that he could not have issued the ruling due to being in cantonment confinement.
