The Jatiya Sangsad has repealed an ordinance issued during the interim government to strengthen the National Human Rights Commission, restoring the National Human Rights Commission Act, 2009 enacted under the Awami League government. The bill was passed in parliament, rejecting objections from the opposition.
The National Human Rights Commission (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill was passed by voice vote on Thursday. According to the bill, it will come into effect immediately upon gazette notification following presidential assent.
As a result, three ordinances related to the Human Rights Commission have been repealed, and the 2009 law has been reinstated. However, actions taken under the repealed ordinances have been validated.
Concerned individuals say that reverting to the earlier law will increase government influence in the selection committee for appointing the commission’s chairman and members. It will also strip the commission of its authority to investigate allegations against law enforcement agencies, reducing its independence and ability to act against human rights violations in certain cases.
Opposition members expressed concern that repealing the ordinance could reopen the path for using the commission as a tool for political repression, as seen in the past.
Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman said the ordinance contained weaknesses. He added that a new law would be drafted after consultations with stakeholders and further review. In the meantime, the 2009 law is being reinstated to ensure that Bangladesh is not left without a Human Rights Commission.
Changes introduced by the interim government
Under the 2009 law, the selection committee for appointing the commission’s chairman and members was dominated by government representatives and chaired by the Speaker.
It included the law minister, home minister, chairman of the Law Commission, cabinet secretary, and one member each from the ruling and opposition parties.
The interim government had introduced changes to this process. Under the ordinance, the selection committee was to be chaired by a judge of the Appellate Division nominated by the Chief Justice.
Members were to include the cabinet secretary, one lawmaker from the ruling party, one from the opposition, a university professor, a civil society representative, a journalist, and a representative of an ethnic minority.
With the passage of the new bill, government control over appointments is set to increase again.
Powers to investigate law enforcement
Under the 2009 law, the commission did not have the authority to investigate allegations of human rights violations against law enforcement agencies. It could only seek reports from the government and, if unsatisfied, make recommendations.
The interim government’s ordinance granted the commission the authority to investigate such allegations. It allowed the commission to initiate inquiries based on complaints or information from media or other sources.
Investigations could be conducted by commissioners, officials, or designated teams. The ordinance also empowered the commission to order compensation or fines and recommend disciplinary or remedial action against responsible individuals or institutions.
The 2009 law allowed the commission to summon witnesses and request documents. The ordinance had expanded these powers, enabling on-site inspections and collection of evidence. It also allowed the commission to seek reports or evidence from any state institution or law enforcement authority and to inspect any place at any time for the purpose of carrying out its functions.
These expanded powers will no longer remain in effect following the passage of the bill.
Opposition objections
Opposition MP Abul Hasnat (Hasnat Abdullah) objected to the bill, saying that over the past 17 years the law had been used to turn the Human Rights Commission into a tool for suppressing opposition voices. He alleged that it had been used to legitimise repression against the BNP.
He warned that scrapping the 2025 ordinance would push the country backward and described the move as a “textbook example” of regression.
Hasnat Abdullah said that in 2009, another government-controlled body had effectively been created in the name of the Human Rights Commission, where five of the six members of the selection committee, led by the Speaker, were from the ruling party.
Hasnat remarked that when the bill was introduced in May 2024, there was not a single member in parliament who would have opposed it. “Times have changed now. The seasons have changed. The chairs have changed. The direction has changed. You are now in the majority, and you have taken a position against this bill,” he said.
Calling the decision to repeal the ordinance a “textbook example” from a moral standpoint, Hasnat said the law is not only about the Human Rights Commission but is also linked to the ordinance on enforced disappearances and the indemnity ordinance for those involved in the July mass uprising.
By repealing the 2025 Human Rights Commission ordinance, the other two ordinances would effectively be rendered ornamental, he said. He added that there is no guarantee the government will not use this law as a tool for political repression in the future.
Law minister’s response
Responding to remarks by Hasnat Abdullah, Law Minister Asaduzzaman said, “The honourable MP has made very eloquent remarks. These statements are far more ‘juicy’ and relevant for places like Paltan Maidan, the Press Club, Muktangan, and street rallies. I believe he has read everything—except the bill.”
The law minister said that if any law is framed with the ill intent of preventing BNP government from functioning, such a law would be ineffective from the outset.
He claimed that the Human Rights Commission ordinance is, in itself, equivalent to another human rights violation against victims. If retained in its current form, it would weaken and render ineffective the law related to the commission on enforced disappearances, he added. He also noted that the ordinance contains many ambiguities and raises numerous questions, making it necessary to consult relevant stakeholders.
The minister explained that while the ordinance allows the National Human Rights Commission to take action suo motu or based on complaints to prevent human rights violations, it does not specify a clear timeframe for sending complaints for investigation. Although 30 days are allocated for preliminary inquiry, there is no guideline on how long a full investigation should take.
He further said that although the commission is empowered to impose fines or compensation, there is a lack of clarity regarding the amount, enforcement process, and the legal framework under which such penalties would be implemented.
The law minister added that in the 42 days of the current government’s tenure, not a single person in Bangladesh has been subjected to crossfire or enforced disappearance, stating that this record reflects the path the government intends to follow on human rights.