Reasons for skepticism about reforms stem from past experience

Asif Nazrul: Of course, there is some disappointment or concern regarding this matter; however, I do not want to look at it unilaterally. There are also positive aspects—I’ll mention those first. The special committee of parliament has decided to accept some laws unchanged, among which there are several important ones. As examples, the ordinances related to civil and criminal procedures, legal aid, cybersecurity, or personal data protection will genuinely increase opportunities for establishing citizens' safety and rights.

Moreover, certain laws related to July, like the establishment of the July Museum, the formation of the Martyrs and fighters' Families Welfare Foundation, and indemnity provisions—these have been retained. These are not just laws but recognition of historical achievements and sacrifices. Environmental laws have also been kept unchanged, which is commendable.

However, the problem is that these positive laws are not enough. In the context of the sacrifice, the loss of life, and the mass uprisings through which change began in 2024, deeper and structural reforms were expected. Those are not being done at present. The government says some laws will be brought back after amendment. But from past experience, we know that these often remain mere promises. Hence, there is no complete peace of mind.

Asif Nazrul: Regarding the law on judicial appointments, there was some controversy over the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council, which I do not deny. Where the constitution speaks of consulting with the Chief Justice, legal questions may arise about the role of the council. However, the rationale has been explained in the proposal for the law. Nonetheless, these are amendable issues, and canceling the entire law was not correct.

The annulment of the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance personally disappointed me. It was a longstanding demand, and there were directives on it in the 2024 court ruling. Under this law, some structural progress has already been made. Processes like staff recruitment, budget preparation, and creating a separate office were underway.

Some objected to the complete handover of subordinate court control to the Supreme Court. But we didn’t grant it immediately. We said that it would happen gradually once the secretariat becomes fully functional. Therefore, canceling the entire law for such an excuse is disappointing. However, I do not want to give up hope yet. Even if not accepted now, there will be an opportunity to formulate these laws shortly. The government should undertake such initiatives out of its realisation, not due to opposition pressure or public criticism.

Asif Nazrul: We worked hard to formulate these two laws. Domestic and international human rights organisations, activists, and human rights workers, who were critical of other issues, regarded these ordinances positively. Moreover, forming a national preventive mechanism as per the Optional Protocol of the Convention Against Torture was included in the Human Rights Law, aiming to prevent serious human rights violations before they happen. The prevention of enforced disappearance ordinance was created in the context of being a party state to related international agreements. Therefore, these ordinances are not just internal needs but are also connected to international obligations. Ignoring them would leave a risk of severe human rights violations.

However, it may not be easy for the current government to completely annul these laws in the political reality. Thousands of BNP leaders and activists have been victims of enforced disappearance and persecution in the past. What answer would BNP give to families like those of Sanjida or Ilias Ali if the prevention of enforced disappearance ordinance is not enacted? Keeping these memories in mind, I hope BNP will enact these laws more robustly in due course.

Asif Nazrul: If we don’t enact the prevention of enforced disappearance ordinance into a law or keep the Human Rights Commission weak, it would indeed be contrary to the expectations of the July uprising. The July uprising didn't occur only due to inequality; it was the explosion of people's accumulated anger against long-standing experiences of enforced disappearances, murders, torture, and harassment. In this context, the laws related to judicial independence and human rights are crucial for strengthening the moral and institutional foundations of that movement.

Asif Nazrul: No law is perfect, and there's always room for improvement. Many of the recommendations that TIB made while drafting the Anti-Corruption Commission Ordinance were adopted. Let's say 7 out of 10 recommendations were retained. However, not all recommendations could be accepted as bureaucratic pressure, opinions of various state institutions, and concerns regarding state functionality had to be considered.

The problem is that the positive aspects often get overshadowed amid criticism. Constructive criticism can help; highlighting both the good parts and the areas needing improvement can make the law-making process more effective. In case the law is reconsidered in the future, this integrated perspective will be important.

Here, a major issue is reality. Making beautiful laws is not enough; one must consider how prepared the state, institutions, and society are to implement those laws. Many countries have good laws, but if there isn't the capability to enforce them, they don’t become effective. Therefore, laws need to be strong yet realistic.

Asif Nazrul: The main issue here is intention. If the goal of law revision is to increase accountability of state institutions and security forces and reduce people's suffering, then it is positive. But if the revisions weaken the law, decrease accountability, or try to centralise governmental power, then it will not be acceptable.

Asif Nazrul: Some ordinances may not be directly related to the government's or state's accountability, but they are important and welfare-oriented. For example, legal aid initiatives have led to many cases being resolved outside of court, which is a great relief for litigants. Amendments to criminal procedure can help reduce harassment, although the results of these changes are not immediately visible.

Moreover, the Cybersecurity Ordinance was prepared based on extensive consultation, including opinions from critics and victims. The law on personal data protection is also important. It is commendable that the government is accepting these laws. However, in order to establish government accountability, laws like the Supreme Court Secretariat or the Human Rights Commission or those related to enforced disappearances are much more crucial. Governance cannot be established without these laws.

Asif Nazrul: The Referendum Ordinance contains an important provision related to 'indemnity' for involved individuals, which would no longer exist if the law is annulled. Additionally, it contains certain crime and penalty-related provisions that might prove to be important in the future. It is necessary to preserve and accept the Referendum Ordinance.

Asif Nazrul: In my opinion, the debate is mainly procedural. BNP argues that constitutional amendments are possible through the parliament, as has been done in the past. On the other hand, opposition parties believe fundamental reforms should occur through a ''Constituent Authority'' based on the sovereignty and uprising of the people in the current context to minimise future legal challenges. However, I consider achieving the objectives more important than the process. If the government and opposition reach a consensus, significant constitutional system reforms can be completed through any forum, whether a constitution reform council or parliament. The main focus should be on implementing the desired reforms.

Asif Nazrul: After the July uprising, it was practically impossible to govern entirely within the constitutional framework. However, there was an attempt to stay as close as possible to the constitutional boundaries. The President's July-related order must be evaluated in this context. It was clearly stated in the proposal of the order that it was adopted based on the sovereign power and intent of the people expressed in the uprising.

Considering this reality, it is difficult to call the President's order unconstitutional. Moreover, in Bangladesh's constitutional history, there are precedents for granting ''post validity''—like the Fifth, Seventh, or Eleventh Amendment. If necessary, steps like these can be legitimised through such processes. Therefore, the issue is not limited only to legal explanations; it also involves the political reality and the people's expectations. The verdict from a referendum should also be considered.

Asif Nazrul: Reform should be viewed in two ways. Firstly, enacting good laws—considering societal needs, international experiences, the country's legal traditions, and institutional capacity. This part is relatively easier. But the tough part is building the necessary institutions and preparing the public for the implementation of those laws. History indicates that the results of reforms are not immediate. For instance, it took 5 to 10 years to see the benefits of Lee Kuan Yew’s reforms in Singapore. We had less than a year and a half. Despite this limited time, some positive outcomes are visible.

An example is the legal aid-related reforms, which are currently resolving three to four times more cases outside of court. Amendments in civil procedure have reduced case resolution time. Many, including expatriates, have benefited from simpler Power of Attorney laws. Benefits from changes in Registration Law and Negotiable Instruments Act are being realised. The prevention of enforced disappearance ordinance initiated the process of granting inheritance to the families of disappeared persons. We have laid the foundation—it is now the current government's responsibility to advance it firmly.

Asif Nazrul: I have spoken with BNP’s top leaders about reform, and I did not notice an anti-reform attitude among them. However, there was caution about whether the state's capacity would be compromised due to reforms, and there were some differences of opinion regarding the reform process.

BNP itself is a major victim of the authoritarian regime. Thus, it is not natural for them to be against reform. The question is how much reform they want and how convincingly they can convey it to the public. BNP says certain reforms will be done later but not now. Yet, based on past experiences, this creates skepticism among people. This is a cause of the problem.

However, BNP now has a significant opportunity. In the 55 years since independence, there have been very few favourable environments for reform. Public expectation for reform is high, and much preparatory work is already done—collectively, this is a historic moment. By utilising this opportunity, they can set a precedent.

Asif Nazrul: I believe this is an exaggerated fear; returning to the past is not practically possible. Because some important structural changes have already been made.

For example, consider the cybersecurity law. Previously, misuse of such laws was used to suppress opposing opinions, but now that opportunity has significantly decreased. There is also less scope for harassment in criminal procedures than before. More importantly, there is now an effective opposition party elected by the people's votes. Just as there is new leadership within the parliament, outside, the young generation is also monitoring government activities.

Given this reality, the pessimism about reverting to the past isn’t strong. However, there might be concern regarding how far forward one can progress following the backdrop of the 2024 uprising. This is logical. Our goal should be to establish such a state system where a situation like the July uprising doesn’t arise again. In this regard, the responsibilities of political parties, particularly BNP, are substantial. They must ensure a state system where people do not worry about reverting to past situations as before.

Asif Nazrul: Thank you too