Repealing NHRC ordinances raises questions

Five now-former members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in an open letter, recently expressed their misgivings about the repeal of three ordinances (or variations) related to the NHRC passed between 2024 and 2025, and the reinstatement of the NHRC Act of 2009. The reinstatement would allow government forces to investigate allegations of their own human rights violations. This is quite disappointing as we had expected that the new ordinance, if passed as law, would give the NHRC the independence and capacity it lacked throughout the Awami League regime. Under the reinstated 2009 act, the NHRC is not authorised to investigate allegations against security forces. The former commission has so far taken cases on issues such as child marriage, violence against women, protection of the rights of marginalised communities and migrant workers, etc. While these are crucial for any human rights organisation to address, the fact that it does not have the power to investigate allegations against law enforcement agencies leaves it significantly handicapped. The recently resigned commissioners have warned that the repeal of the ordinances means that deaths related to the July uprising would be investigated by forces against whom the allegations have been made. The law minister has said that the new ordinance contained weaknesses and that a new law was in the offing that would be drafted after consultations with stakeholders and further review. According to the outgoing commissioners, the repealed 2025 ordinances had been drafted after consultations with 600 stakeholders. Why couldn’t the ordinances have been kept, with amendments to any weaknesses made later, if necessary, in parliament? Three ordinances related to the Human Rights Commission have also been repealed. Two were on the prevention and remedy of enforced disappearance, with maximum punishment for perpetrators of the crime. These were groundbreaking and gave hope that, finally, victims of enforced disappearances and their families would get justice, no matter how powerful the perpetrators. They were also drafted to put an end to such horrific crimes carried out by government forces. Under the 2009 law, the commission’s chairman and members were appointed by a selection committee dominated by government representatives, including the law minister, home minister, chairman of the Law Commission, cabinet secretary, a ruling party member and one from the opposition. The now-repealed ordinances aimed to change this by stipulating that the selection committee would be chaired by a judge of the Appellate Division (nominated by the chief justice) and members would include the cabinet secretary, one lawmaker from the ruling party and one from the opposition, a university professor, a civil society representative, a journalist and a representative of an ethnic minority. Reinstating the 2009 act may allow for a revival of political appointments, again creating a conflict of interest. The prime minister has reiterated on many occasions his government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all. Repealing ordinances aligned with such goals seems contradictory and does little to gain public trust.