Setbacks in institutional reforms

The interim government introduced legal reforms regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges, the establishment of an independent secretariat for the supervision and control of subordinate courts, amendments to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) law to enhance investigative and intelligence-gathering powers, and legal changes to prevent crimes such as enforced disappearances.

Several ordinances were issued for this purpose; however, these important ordinances are not currently being approved in parliament. As a result, they will lose their effectiveness after 10 April.

Relevant stakeholders say that the more institutions such as the judiciary, the ACC, and the Human Rights Commission are able to operate independently and impartially, the more limited the government’s unilateral power becomes, thereby facilitating good governance. With this objective, the constitutional and institutional reform initiatives taken by the interim government have already stumbled at the very beginning of the elected government’s tenure. Meanwhile, according to the July National Charter (constitutional reform) implementation order, no initiative has been taken to reform the constitution.

However, the ruling party, BNP, says that steps will be taken to amend the constitution in line with its election promises and the way the July Charter was signed, including differing opinions. It also stated that there are recommendations to review and further strengthen certain issues, such as reforms in independent bodies like the ACC and the National Human Rights Commission, as well as ordinances aimed at preventing enforced disappearances, before turning them into law in the future. It remains to be seen when and how strongly the ruling BNP will enact these laws.

During the 18 months of the interim government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus, 133 ordinances were issued. According to the Constitution, these ordinances were presented in the first session of the 13th Parliament on 12 March. If any ordinance is not approved by Parliament by 10 April, it will lose its validity.

After review, a special committee of the National Parliament has recommended approval of 113 ordinances. Of the remaining 20, it has recommended repealing 4 and not immediately presenting 16 as bills in Parliament. These 16 are to be further reviewed and strengthened before being introduced as new bills in the future. In other words, these 20 ordinances are set to lapse. Among them are 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 the prevention of enforced disappearances, and one related to the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Starting next Monday, the National Parliament will begin the process of approving the ordinances. Alongside those being approved, the four that are to be repealed will also be presented in the form of bills. In total, 117 bills will be introduced. After the relevant ministers present the bills, opposition members will have the opportunity to propose amendments and engage in discussion; however, whether those amendments are accepted will depend entirely on the government’s discretion. This is because the ruling party, BNP, holds enough of a majority in Parliament to pass any law, even to amend the Constitution.

Nurul Islam, Chief Whip of the National Parliament and a member of the special committee, told Prothom Alo that new bills will be introduced later to ensure full independence of the Supreme Court. He said they agree on taking action against enforced disappearances. He added that bills, along with some amendments, will also be introduced later to strengthen the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Human Rights Commission.

Secretaries of the relevant ministries have already been instructed in this regard. The Chief Whip also mentioned that if not in the current session, these revised bills may be introduced in the next session.

Article 95 of the existing Constitution states that the President shall appoint judges in consultation with the Chief Justice. However, Article 48(3) states that, except for the appointment of the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice, the President shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister in all other matters.

The Constitution also specifies disqualifications for becoming a judge. A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a judge if they are not a citizen of Bangladesh, or have not served as an advocate of the Supreme Court for at least 10 years, or have not held a judicial office for at least 10 years, or do not possess the qualifications prescribed by law for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

No government in the past has enacted a law on the appointment of judges. At different times, there have also been allegations of politicization within the judiciary. In this context, the interim government issued the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance in 2025. It states that a “Supreme Judicial Appointment Council” will select suitable candidates for appointment to the Appellate Division and the High Court Division of the Supreme Court. This independent council, led by the Chief Justice, will recommend qualified individuals to the President.

Relevant stakeholders say that such a law would increase the opportunity to appoint more qualified and impartial individuals; however, the current government is not approving this ordinance. As a result, until a new law is enacted, the process of appointing judges will revert to its previous system.
The July National Charter includes a recommendation to amend the Constitution to provide for an independent Judicial Appointment Council for appointing Supreme Court judges. However, BNP had a dissenting view on this matter. The party stated that a law would be enacted regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance was introduced with the aim of establishing an independent secretariat to oversee, control, and discipline subordinate courts and to effectively implement judicial independence. According to this ordinance, the Supreme Court Secretariat would carry out all administrative and secretarial responsibilities related to the supervision and control of subordinate courts and administrative tribunals.

All decisions regarding the posting, promotion, transfer, discipline, and leave of judges engaged in judicial work, along with other related matters, would fall under this secretariat. Overall control of the Supreme Court Secretariat would rest with the Chief Justice, and its Secretary would serve as the administrative head.

Relevant stakeholders say that this ordinance created a pathway to reduce the influence of the executive branch over the judiciary, particularly subordinate courts. It is considered an important step toward ensuring judicial independence. The July National Charter also includes a proposal to establish a separate secretariat for the Supreme Court in order to effectively separate the judiciary from the executive branch.

A total of 32 parties, including the BNP, agreed to this proposal in the National Consensus Commission. BNP has pledged to ensure judicial independence and to enact laws regarding judicial appointments. Now it remains to be seen when BNP will enact these laws and what form they will take.

To address the widely discussed issue of enforced disappearances, the interim government issued an ordinance in 2025 for the first time. The ordinance aimed to incorporate provisions of the international convention into Bangladesh’s legal framework to protect all individuals from enforced disappearance. It defined enforced disappearance as a “continuing crime.” However, this ordinance is not being approved for now.

There have been questions about how independent and effective the Human Rights Commission is. To make the body truly independent and effective, the interim government introduced an ordinance with some fundamental changes. According to the opposition, the ordinance granted the Commission the authority to investigate allegations of human rights violations against state institutions and law enforcement agencies. This would establish an effective “check and balance” on the activities of law enforcement agencies and reduce arbitrariness.

In 2025, the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance was issued to expand the investigative and intelligence-gathering powers of the ACC. It included provisions for filing cases directly, bringing serious financial crimes, including those committed abroad—under the law, and increasing the number of Commission members. However, some stakeholders believe that the ACC ordinance still has several weaknesses.

In the meeting of the special committee of the National Parliament, the opposition party Jamaat-e-Islami supported the approval of these ordinances. Three of its Members of Parliament -- Mujibur Raman, Rafiqul Islam Khan, and Gazi Nurul Islam -- served on the committee. However, these three members recorded notes of dissent regarding the decisions taken on 20 ordinances, including those related to the Supreme Court Secretariat, Supreme Court judge appointments, the National Human Rights Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment), and the prevention and remedy of enforced disappearances.

In their notes of dissent, the three members stated that these ordinances reflected efforts to introduce structural reforms in various important sectors of the state, enhance institutional autonomy, increase accountability, and establish modern and effective systems in the judiciary, law enforcement, anti-corruption, the financial sector, and information flow.

Badiul Alam Majumdar, chief executive of SHUJAN (Citizens for Good Governance), who was also a member of the National Consensus Commission formed to build consensus on reform proposals across different sectors of the state, told Prothom Alo that the important and fundamental reform initiatives taken during the interim government now face obstacles. He said that ordinances beneficial to the people are not being approved. It is difficult to understand why the ruling authorities are reluctant on such important issues. This may raise public suspicion as to whether it reflects the government’s reluctance toward fundamental constitutional reforms.