Opposition walks out citing ‘too weak’
For the second time in as many weeks, opposition lawmakers walked out of the Parliament on Sunday just before votes on two closely watched human rights bills, arguing that legislation meant to prevent enforced disappearances and strengthen the national human rights commission had been deliberately watered down.
Opposition Leader Shafiqur Rahman announced the walkout moments after Speaker Hafiz Uddin Ahmad called on Law Minister Md. Asaduzzaman to formally introduce the National Human Rights Commission Bill for consideration.
Rahman took the floor first, telling the chamber that his party’s objections predated the day’s session and had already been made clear.
“When the treasury bench allowed the previous bills to lapse, they promised they would bring back stronger, better-crafted legislation,” Rahman said, referring to earlier versions of the laws.
“We do not want to be part of passing this legislation,” he added, announcing that his party would not participate in the debate and was walking out.
The speaker’s response was brief. “Thank you for walking out,” he told Rahman, after which opposition members left the chamber.
Sunday’s walkout mirrored one that took place on Aug. 27, when the same two bills were first tabled.
On that occasion, opposition lawmakers left the chamber even before the bills were formally introduced, saying they did not want to lend legitimacy to what they described as a fragmented legislative process that sidestepped broader demands for reform.
The party subsequently boycotted committee-level discussions on both bills as well.
Opposition lawmakers have argued throughout that the government scrapped ordinances from the previous interim administration without adequately consulting victims, civil society groups, or domestic and international human rights organizations – despite promising, at the time of repeal, to replace them with stronger measures.
Rahman’s central substantive objection centered on what he described as unequal legal treatment embedded in the human rights bill.
Under its provisions, he said, the human rights commission could investigate ordinary citizens directly for rights violations, while members of law enforcement and other state security forces would be shielded by special procedural provisions before facing similar scrutiny.
“They are employees of the state, but they are also citizens of this country,” Rahman said.
“The same offense cannot be investigated directly against one person while being blocked through a separate process for another. That cannot stand.”
Presenting the bill, Law Minister Asaduzzaman rejected the opposition’s characterization, saying the government had in fact strengthened the legislation as promised. “We have indeed strengthened it,” he said.
“But unfortunately, in some areas where we made it stronger, the opposition did not stay to hear.”
He argued that the proposed National Human Rights Commission would be more robust than comparable bodies elsewhere in South Asia, noting that selection committees for similar commissions in India, Pakistan and Nepal are chaired by the prime minister, while no Western democracy places its judiciary in that role.
Under the new bill, he said, the selection process would instead be led by the speaker of Parliament as a neutral figure.
“We have placed the institution – the great parliament – at the center,” Asaduzzaman said. “We wanted to place our highest trust and confidence in this institution.”
Background: A Legislative Do-Over
The dispute traces back to the interim government led by Prof. Muhammad Yunus, which issued thr
ee ordinances between 2024 and 2025 amending and reconstituting the National Human Rights Commission.
After the 13th Parliament’s elected government took office, it repealed all three ordinances during its first session and reinstated the original National Human Rights Commission Act of 2009 through new legislation.
Separately, two ordinances addressing enforced disappearances lapsed after Parliament failed to ratify them within the 30-day constitutional window required for any ordinance issued between sessions.
The government has since moved to introduce fresh legislation addressing both issues – the same bills that prompted Sunday’s walkout.
Since the cabinet approved draft versions of both laws, human rights activists, political parties and civil society groups have repeatedly raised concerns that the final bills fall short of the protections promised when the earlier ordinances were withdrawn.
