Staff Reporter:
Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has raised serious concerns over what it terms covert amendments to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Ordinance, warning that the changes have put the commission’s formation under bureaucratic control and weakened its independence.
In a statement issued on Saturday, TIB said key stakeholders involved in drafting the ordinance were neither informed nor consulted about the amendments, demonstrating how bureaucratic rigidity and even deliberate obstruction has stalled the long-awaited reform process.
The organisation alleged that the inclusion of the cabinet secretary in the selection committee was intended solely to ensure direct government control, reinforcing authoritarian practices rather than promoting reform.
TIB described the move as a humiliating example of the government yielding to bureaucratic forces opposed to meaningful change. TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman said that when
the ordinance was first gazetted, TIB and other stakeholders despite identifying shortcomings had hoped it would pave the way for freeing the commission from bureaucratic dominance and aligning it with public expectations and international standards.
“Yet within just a month, on 9 December, the selection committee once considered a safeguard against bureaucratic interference has been transformed into a tool of government control,” he said.
He added that the long-standing ineffectiveness of the Human Rights Commission and other constitutional bodies in Bangladesh stems largely from excessive government influence, and that the latest amendment is part of a broader, coordinated effort to preserve the status quo.
Calling the bureaucratic takeover of the selection committee and the government’s acquiescence deeply disappointing, Iftekharuzzaman acknowledged that the amendment includes a positive provision to establish a National Preventive Mechanism to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
“However, the mere inclusion of the cabinet secretary in the selection committee effectively negates any prospect of ensuring the commission’s independence, impartiality and effectiveness, and contradicts the spirit of that provision,” he said.
TIB also criticised amendments that dilute the commission’s authority, noting in particular the replacement of mandatory language requiring authorities to report actions taken on the commission’s orders with optional wording such as “may be informed.” Such changes, it said, have stripped the ordinance of much of its positive potential.
Describing the government’s position as “embarrassing,” TIB urged authorities to reverse what it termed a capitulation to an anti-reform bureaucratic clique.
The organisation demanded the repeal of the amended provisions especially the inclusion of the cabinet secretary in the selection committee and a comprehensive revision of the ordinance.
TIB further noted that Ordinance No 62, gazetted on 9 November, had excluded any bureaucratic representation on the selection committee, reflecting a shared understanding among stakeholders about past failures.
In contrast, the amended Ordinance No 74, gazetted on 8 December, added the cabinet secretary without consultation—an action TIB said was aimed solely at consolidating bureaucratic control.
