Govt’s proposed Human Rights Commission Act resembles past authoritarian law: TIB

The BNP government has revised the interim administration’s “National Human Rights Commission Ordinance” in the final draft law, reinstating provisions under the 2009 authoritarian version, alleged TIB on Tuesday.

The proposed revised law includes provisions that make the Commission dependent on the government or the concerned law enforcement agencies—including mandatory permission requirements—when investigating allegations of human rights violations by law enforcement agencies, the Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) said in a press release.

 It also incorporates provisions ensuring overwhelming control of the ruling party in the appointment of commissioners, said TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman in the statement.

TIB has expressed deep concern that such provisions would once again turn the Commission into an ineffective institution under government control, similar to the authoritarian era of the past. Among the few exceptional ordinances issued during the interim government period that held promise for accountability, one of the most notable was the National Human Rights Commission Ordinance. However, by reinstating controversial provisions similar to those in the 2009 law—which undermined the independence of the Human Rights Commission—the ruling BNP government has effectively taken a position completely contrary to its own election manifesto commitment to protecting human rights, TIB believes. 

Dr Iftekharuzzaman said, “Under the ordinance issued during the interim government period, the Commission had been granted the authority to directly investigate allegations of human rights violations—including enforced disappearances and killings allegedly carried out under state patronage by law enforcement agencies—as well as to determine the extent of punishment and recommend punitive measures against responsible individuals and institutions. However, in the new draft law, Section 18 of the 2009 Act has been reinstated verbatim, thereby preserving practices from the authoritarian era. In other words, in cases of human rights violations by law enforcement agencies, the Commission has once again been made dependent on reports from the government or the heads of those agencies. Due to such weaknesses in the 2009 law, the National Human Rights Commission was never granted ‘A’ category status under international standards. Moreover, in most past incidents of enforced disappearances, killings, and other human rights violations, there have been specific allegations of involvement by certain members of law enforcement agencies. In such a context, retaining this provision would effectively serve as protection for them.”

Referring to Section 13 of the draft law, the TIB Executive Director said, “The Human Rights Commission has not been given the authority to investigate, on its own initiative, whether human rights violations are taking place. Furthermore, the opportunity that had been provided in the ordinance to inspect, visit, and investigate possible detention sites of intelligence agencies and the military—where detained persons subjected to enforced disappearances and various forms of torture may be kept—as well as to make necessary recommendations to the government for improving such places and conditions, has also been removed. Regrettably, despite the experiences the people of the country, all political parties currently represented in the parliament, and particularly leaders and activists of almost all levels of the ruling party went through during the past authoritarian period, it does not appear that they have learned any lessons from those experiences, which is reflected in the draft law obtained following the consultation meeting held on 17 May at the government’s initiative.”

The inclusion of the Speaker, Law Minister, Home Minister, a ruling party Member of Parliament, and the Cabinet Secretary as members of the commissioner selection committee creates a serious risk of establishing absolute government control over the National Human Rights Commission, said Dr. Iftekharuzzaman. He added, “In the draft law, the provision in the repealed ordinance stating that the National Human Rights Commission ‘shall not be under any ministry or department of the government’ has been removed. On one hand, the Commission is described as an independent institution; on the other hand, what could be the justification for removing a clause that safeguards its autonomy and independence? Furthermore, in order to make the Commission more inclusive, the requirement in the ordinance to include representatives from ethnic minorities and women as commissioners has been replaced with the condition of ‘qualified candidates’, which would turn the Commission into a ‘male-dominated’ and ‘majoritarian’ institution.”

By allowing 30 percent of the Commission’s total staff to be deputed from government service, and by permitting a serving government employee to be appointed as a commissioner while taking leave from their official post, the institution would essentially be turned into a body fully controlled by bureaucracy and the government, as in the past. Dr Zaman considers this to be a contradictory and ultimately self-defeating step that would reduce the organization to nothing more than a “figurehead institution” under full bureaucratic control.

He added that by abandoning this contradictory and self-defeating path, and in line with its election manifesto commitment to ensure human rights protection under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the government should carefully consider the concerns raised by TIB and other stakeholders regarding the controversial provisions of the draft law. He expressed the expectation that such considerations would help establish a truly independent and effective National Human Rights Commission.