The basic structure doctrine was adopted by the [[Supreme Court of Bangladesh]] in 1989, by expressly relying on the reasoning in the Kesavananda case, in its ruling on ''Anwar Hossain Chowdhary v. Bangladesh''.<ref>''Anwar Hossain Chowdhary v. Bangladesh'' (41 DLR 1989 App. Div. 165, 1989 BLD (Spl.) 1).</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1809/18090950.htm |title=Behind the 'basic structure' doctrine |access-date=2013-12-02 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101220120644/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1809/18090950.htm |archive-date=2010-12-20 }}</ref> However, Bangladesh is the only legal system to introduce this concept through constitutional provisions. Article 7B of the Constitution of Bangladesh introduced some parts of it as basic provisions of the constitution and referred to some others (which are not properly defined) as basic structure of the constitution and declares all of these as not amendable.
===Belize===
The basic structure doctrine was invoked by the [[Supreme Court of Judicature of Belize]] in ''[[Bowen v Attorney General]]''<ref>''[[Bowen v Attorney General]]'' BZ 2009 SC 2''</ref> in rejecting the [[Belize Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Bill 2008]], which had sought to exclude certain deprivation of property rights from judicial review. The court recognised the fundamental rights granted by the constitution, respect for the rule of law and the right to the ownership of private property as basic features of the Belizean constitution, as well as the separation of powers, which [[Chief Justice of Belize|Chief Justice]] [[Abdulai Conteh]] noted had been recognised by the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in ''Hinds v The Queen''<ref>''Hinds v The Queen'' [1977] AC 195''</ref> (which was not a constitutional amendment case<ref name="BCBvAGBelize2011">{{cite web|title=British Caribbean Bank Ltd v AG Belize Claim No. 597 of 2011|publisher=[[Supreme Court of Judicature of Belize]]|url=https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7738.pdf|date=2012|access-date=2020-11-22|url-status=live|archive-date=2020-11-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201122015535/https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7738.pdf}}</ref>{{rp|41}}) as implicit in Westminster model constitutions in the Caribbean Commonwealth realm.<ref name="OBrien2013">{{cite web|last=O'Brien|first=Derek|date=2013-05-28|title=Derek O'Brien: The Basic Structure Doctrine and the Courts of the Commonwealth Caribbean|url=https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/05/28/derek-obrien-the-basic-structure-doctrine-and-the-courts-of-the-commonwealth-caribbean/|publisher=UK Constitutional Law Association|work=UK Constitutional Law Blog|access-date=2020-11-22|archive-date=2020-10-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201021101350/https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/05/28/derek-obrien-the-basic-structure-doctrine-and-the-courts-of-the-commonwealth-caribbean/|url-status=live}}</ref>
The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine in ''[[British Caribbean Bank Ltd v AG Belize]]''<ref>''[[British Caribbean Bank Ltd v AG Belize]]'' Claim No. 597 of 2011''</ref><ref name="BCBvAGBelize2011"/><ref name="">{{cite web|title=British Caribbean Bank Limited v. The Government of Belize PCA 2010-18|url=https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-british-caribbean-bank-ltd-v-the-government-of-belize-award-friday-19th-december-2014|publisher=[[Permanent Court of Arbitration]]|date=2014-12-19|access-date=2020-11-22|archive-date=2020-11-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201122030218/https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-british-caribbean-bank-ltd-v-the-government-of-belize-award-friday-19th-december-2014|url-status=live}}</ref> and struck down parts of the [[Belize Telecommunications (Amendment) Act 2011]] and [[Belize Constitution (Eighth) Amendment Act 2011]]. The amendments had sought to preclude the court from deciding on whether deprivation of property by the government was for a public purpose, and to remove any limits on the [[National Assembly (Belize)|National Assembly]]'s power to alter the constitution. This was found to impinge on the separation of powers, which had earlier been identified as part of the basic structure of the Belizean constitution.<ref name="OBrien2013"/>
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Supreme Court, ruling that "the so-called basic structure doctrine is not a part of the law of Belize and does not apply to the Belize Constitution".<ref name=":1" />
Line 185:
=== Uganda ===
In December 2017, the Ugandan parliament passed a Constitutional Amendment which removed the age limit of 75 years for the President and Chairpersons of the Local Council. The President Yoweri Museveni, who has been President of Uganda since 1986, signed the amendment into law in January 2018, aged '74 years' (Unsubstantiated evidence is available that the alleged dictator is in his late 80's). Several opposition leaders and the Uganda Law Society, challenged the constitutionality of the amendment before the Constitutional Court, which (majority) upheld the validity of the amendment. Taking note of the judgments in ''Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,''<ref>''Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala'' AIR 1973 SC</ref> and ''Minerva Mills v. Union of India'',<ref>''Minerva Mills v. Union of India'' AIR 1980 SC 1789,</ref> the Supreme Court of Uganda in ''Mabirizi Kiwanuka & ors. v. Attorney General'',<ref>''Mabirizi Kiwanuka & ors. v. Attorney General'' [2019] UGSC 6,</ref> unanimously upheld the Constitutional Court (majority) finding.
