The BNP government is also retaining provisions that allow for the dismissal of elected representatives of local government bodies under “special circumstances” or “in the public interest.” Experts warn that this carries a risk of misuse and could enable the removal of local representatives “at will.” This runs contrary to the commitments made in the BNP’s election manifesto.
Following the July mass uprising that led to the fall of the Awami League government, the interim government created this provision through four ordinances issued under special circumstances.
At the time, a large number of local government representatives had gone into hiding, disrupting the regular functioning of city corporations, pourasava, district council, and upazila parishad. Additionally, there was a policy decision at the highest level of the then government to remove Awami League leaders, activists, and associated individuals from local government institutions.
In that context, on 17 August, 2024, the Local Government (City Corporation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024; the Local Government (Municipality) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024; the District Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024; and the Upazila Parishad (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024 were promulgated.
These ordinances created the scope to dismiss elected representatives under “special circumstances” or “in the public interest,” although these terms were not clearly defined. Through these provisions, the power to remove representatives and appoint administrators was placed directly in the hands of the government.
After the ordinances were issued, on 19 August, 2024, the interim government removed mayors of 12 city corporations, chairmen of 60 district councils, and all chairmen, vice-chairmen, female vice-chairmen of upazila parishad, as well as mayors of pourasavas across the country. On that day, through separate gazette notifications, a total of 1,876 elected representatives across these four tiers of local government were removed.
A notable aspect of these four ordinances is that they override other provisions of the law, allowing direct exercise of executive power regardless of existing legal clauses. As a result, the government can remove anyone at any time, without the previous requirement of specific charges, investigation, or judicial process.
After forming the government, a special committee of the Jatiya Sangsad reviewed 133 ordinances issued during the 18 months of the interim government. The committee recommended approval of 117 ordinances.
Of the remaining 20, it recommended the repeal of 4 and not placing 16 in Parliament as bills for now, meaning these 20 ordinances are set to lose validity. These include one related to the appointment of Supreme Court judges, two concerning the Supreme Court Secretariat, three related to the National Human Rights Commission, two concerning enforced disappearance prevention, and one related to the Anti-Corruption Commission.
Among the ordinances that the BNP is retaining or recommending to be enacted into law are those related to local government, which include provisions allowing the dismissal of representatives “at will.”
State Minister for Local Government Mir Shahe Alam told journalists yesterday, Saturday, after paying tribute at the graves of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia, that the ordinances issued during the interim government regarding local government have already been vetted by a parliamentary special committee and approved for introduction in Parliament as law. He said they will be placed before Parliament as soon as possible.
When asked why the dismissal provisions in the local government ordinances are being retained despite being described as “undemocratic,” State Minister Mir Shahe Alam told Prothom Alo last night, “If the dismissal is lawful, we will proceed with it. If it is contrary to the law, the person dismissed can go to court. There is no problem.”
Structure of Local Government
There are five tiers of local government institutions—union parishad, upazila parishad, zilla parishad, pourashava, and city corporation. There are 4,575 union parishads, 495 upazila parishads, 61 zila parishads (excluding the three hill districts), 330 pourashavas, and 12 city corporations in the country.
Local government refers to the system of local governance that works to provide services to local people, develop infrastructure, and resolve local problems. For example, the responsibilities of Dhaka North and South City Corporations include addressing the problems of residents in the city, for which they also collect taxes.
It is the people who elect ward commissioners and mayors in city corporations through voting. In principle, there should be no interference from the central government. However, successive governments have consistently tried to maintain such control.
The Local Government Reform Commission formed during the interim government stated in its report, “There is no alternative to an effective local government system to ensure good local governance.” It noted that although seven commissions and committees have been formed at different times since independence to strengthen local government and ensure governance at the local level, their recommendations have never been effectively implemented. Notably, the recommendations of this commission have also largely remained unimplemented.
Professor Kazi Maruful Islam of the Development Studies Department at Dhaka University told Prothom Alo, “No government has allowed local government institutions to develop as bodies that serve the needs of the people; rather, they have sought to maintain central authority.
They have treated local government as an ‘instrument’ of political power. There is no indication of any initiative to reverse that trend.” He added, “It is unfortunate that the provision to dismiss elected local representatives ‘at will’ is being retained. We expected a more positive role from the BNP government, which came to power with strong public support.”
What the law previously provided
Before the amendments to the local government laws, there were clear conditions for removing elected representatives. A representative could be removed if they were absent from three consecutive meetings without reasonable cause. Action could also be taken if they were involved in activities harmful to the state or the council. There was also a provision for losing office if convicted by a court for moral turpitude.
Under the earlier provisions, removal was also possible if refusal to perform duties, physical or mental incapacity, misconduct, or abuse of power was proven. The same action could be taken if disqualification was established after the election.
Failure to attend required annual meetings or to convene such meetings was also grounds for removal. If election expense reports were not submitted or false information was provided, action could be taken if proven within six months.
Additionally, there was a provision to remove a representative through a vote of no confidence by councillors or members following a defined process. There was also a provision for temporary suspension if removal proceedings were initiated or if a court accepted criminal charges. In other words, removal was previously process-based and conditional. Even then, there have been numerous instances in the past where opposition-affiliated local representatives were removed, which led to controversy.
During the interim government, the scope for dismissal was further expanded, and the BNP government is now retaining it. This is despite the BNP’s 31-point reform outline and election manifesto pledging to strengthen local government.
Point 21 of the 31-point outline states: “To ensure decentralisation, local government institutions will be made autonomous and empowered.” It also says that administrators should not be appointed to local government bodies unless a position becomes vacant due to death or a court order, and that elected representatives should not be dismissed or removed by executive order unless convicted by a court. The BNP reiterated the same commitment in its manifesto.
Md. Shahjahan Ali, former chairman of Saturia upazila parishad in Manikganj and district convener of Bangladesh JSD, who was removed after 5 August 2024, told Prothom Alo that people elect representatives through voting, and removing them without fault through an order is unlawful. He said such interference against the people’s mandate must stop.
Bureaucratic dependence
During the interim government, all four local government amendment ordinances included provisions to remove elected representatives and appoint administrators in their place. Under these provisions, the administrators exercise all the powers of elected representatives. The government can also form committees under the administrators if necessary.
At that time, elected representatives were removed and additional secretaries or officials of equivalent rank, as well as divisional commissioners, were appointed as administrators in nearly all city corporations. In zila parishads, additional divisional commissioners (general) and deputy commissioners were assigned administrative roles. In upazila parishads, responsibilities were carried out by UNOs, while pourashavas were overseen by deputy directors of local government, additional deputy commissioners, and assistant commissioners (land). As a result, stakeholders believe bureaucratic control over local government increased.
After forming the government, BNP has already appointed administrators in 56 zila parishads. Administrators have also been appointed in 11 city corporations, including two in the capital. All of them are BNP leaders. Various parties and organisations have criticised these politically motivated appointments in key local government institutions and have demanded the swift transfer of power to elected representatives through local government elections.
‘This provision conflicts with the Constitution’
Article 31 of the Constitution guarantees the right to protection of law, stating that no action shall be taken that harms a person’s life, liberty, body, reputation, or property except in accordance with law.
Supreme Court lawyer S M Mahidul Islam, who has long worked on cases related to the removal of local government representatives, told Prothom Alo that the provision allowing the removal of directly elected representatives without a show-cause notice or opportunity for self-defense is inconsistent with the Constitution. He added that bypassing legal procedures in this way would weaken the local government system and could reduce public participation and trust in the electoral process.