Dhaka, Bangladesh – Bangladesh’s parliament has cancelled or rolled back several reforms introduced after the 2024 student-led uprising and aimed at increasing accountability of the government and security forces, prompting concerns that the nation might be backtracking on democratic gains made since former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s ouster.
Dominated by the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party that swept to power in February elections, parliament has in recent days reviewed a package of 133 ordinances – several of which were related to reform initiatives issued by the interim government of Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus that was in charge after Hasina fled for India.
Of those, at least 23 – including key measures on human rights, judicial oversight, anticorruption and policing – have either been repealed or allowed to lapse after failing to secure parliamentary approval within the constitutional timeframe.
While the majority of ordinances have been approved, the ones that have fallen away are widely seen as central to efforts to restructure institutions long criticised for political interference, lack of transparency and weak accountability.
Opposition parties, civil society groups and several analysts describe the move as a rollback of core safeguards agreed after the uprising, warning it could weaken oversight and re-centralise power.
The government, however, insists it is undertaking a necessary legislative review to correct flaws and reintroduce more robust laws after consultation.
The dispute has quickly spilled over beyond parliament. Opposition alliances have staged protests and warned of a nationwide movement, while analysts say the debate reflects a deeper struggle over the direction of Bangladesh’s political transition – one unfolding both inside parliament and on the streets.
The current dispute is rooted in the July 2024 uprising – a student-led movement that brought down Hasina’s government after years of criticism over high-handed governance, suppression of dissent, systemic enforced disappearances and human rights abuses.
The fall of the government created an unusual moment of political convergence. For the first time in years, major political actors – including rival parties – agreed on the need for structural reform.
An interim administration led by Yunus took charge. The July National Charter – a political framework for reforms on judicial independence, human rights, elections and decentralisation, among other issues – was signed by more than two dozen parties and was later endorsed in a nationwide referendum alongside the February 2026 election, with about 70 percent support.
Unlike routine policy reforms, the charter was conceived as a blueprint for structural transformation – a reconfiguration of how power is distributed across institutions.
However, with parliament dissolved after Hasina’s ouster, the Yunus administration could not turn these reform proposals into full-fledged laws. Instead, it issued dozens of ordinances across sectors, many of them aligned with the charter.
Under Bangladesh’s constitution, such ordinances must be placed before parliament within 30 days of its first sitting and either approved, amended or allowed to lapse.
When the newly elected parliament convened in March 2026, it faced the task of reviewing all of the 133 ordinances introduced by the Yunus administration. According to official data, 110 were approved – some with amendments – while 23 lost legal validity, including seven that were formally repealed and 16 that lapsed automatically after not being brought to a vote.
The ones that lapsed or were repealed include laws related to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), enforced disappearances, judicial appointments, Supreme Court administration, police reform and anticorruption oversight – measures seen as central to the post-uprising reform agenda.
While parliament has the authority to approve, amend or reject ordinances, the outcome has raised questions about the BNP government’s commitment to implementing the broader reform vision outlined in the July Charter.
One of the most significant reversals concerns the NHRC – a state body tasked with investigating human rights violations.
Under the 2025 ordinance, the NHRC was granted expanded powers designed to make it more independent and effective. These included the authority to investigate allegations against state agencies, including police and security forces, defined timelines for investigations, clearer provisions for compensation and accountability, and greater administrative and financial autonomy.
But the ordinance has now been repealed, with a 2009 law now reinstated, even though it contains key limitations: The commission cannot independently investigate security forces. For instance, if a citizen alleges abuse by a security agency, the NHRC could directly investigate under the 2025 ordinance; under the 2009 law, however, it can only request an investigation report from the government and then recommend action.
This creates a potential conflict of interest – and raises questions about independence.
The government, however, has argued that the ordinance contained legal ambiguities and required further scrutiny, particularly in areas such as investigative authority, penalties and procedural clarity, and has said it plans to bring a revised version after consultation.
But in an open letter, five outgoing commissioners have challenged that explanation, arguing that the government’s stated objections do not reflect the actual provisions of the law.
Former commissioner Nabila Idris said the concerns cited by the government were already addressed in the ordinance. “The government is bringing up spurious complaints about the ordinances,” she told Al Jazeera.
She warned that weakening legal safeguards could have broader consequences. “Two things are needed – legal protection and political will,” she said. “Right now, there seems to be a belief that political will alone is enough, even if legal protections are weak. But that is not how accountability works.”
One key area of concern for critics involves the issue of enforced disappearances.
Human rights groups have long documented cases in which individuals were arrested by security forces and later disappeared or were found dead during the 15 years of rule by Hasina’s Awami League party.
A government-formed Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances during the Yunus administration received more than 1,900 complaints and, after verification, confirmed at least 1,569 cases, including hundreds classified as “missing and dead”, while indicating that the actual number could be significantly higher.
Families of victims have long demanded legal recognition of the crime and mechanisms for accountability.
The repealed ordinance sought to address this by defining enforced disappearance as a specific criminal offence, establishing procedures for investigation and prosecution, and providing a legal basis for victims’ families to seek justice.
With its lapse, experts warn of a legal grey area. “If a crime is not clearly defined, it becomes difficult to punish,” Idris, the former NHRC commissioner, said, noting that the current law lacked a clear legal definition of enforced disappearances. “When safeguards are weakened, it creates space for abuse,” she warned. “Leaving that space open is like leaving a door unlocked – eventually, someone will walk through it.”
Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) – originally set up to prosecute war crimes – can handle enforced disappearances only when they are part of a widespread or systematic pattern. It does not cover individual cases. Meanwhile, existing criminal law does not clearly define enforced disappearances as a standalone offence.
This creates a situation where many cases could fall outside both systems, making prosecution difficult and leaving victims’ families without a clear path to justice. Idris, who was also a member of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, said this weakens deterrence. “If a crime is not clearly defined in law, then accountability becomes much harder,” she said.
Among the ordinances now no longer operational was a proposal to establish an independent Supreme Court secretariat and a new system for appointing judges through a council-based process.
These measures aimed to reduce executive influence over the judiciary – a longstanding concern in Bangladesh, where the government has traditionally played a significant role in judicial appointments and administration.
Their removal means that the existing system remains largely intact.
Journalist and political analyst Akbar Hossain said this raises concerns about the balance of power. “A judiciary is expected to function independently,” he said. “If administrative and appointment processes remain under executive influence, then that independence becomes limited in practice.”
The government has rejected claims that it is abandoning reform, framing the changes as part of a necessary legislative review.
At a joint news briefing on April 13 in Dhaka, attended by the law minister, home minister and chief whip, officials said several ordinances – including those on enforced disappearance, the NHRC, anticorruption commission measures and judicial reforms – required further scrutiny and would be reintroduced after consultation with stakeholders.
They argued that some provisions lacked clarity, that overlapping legal frameworks could create inconsistencies, and that laws drafted during the interim period needed refinement before being made permanent.
Salahuddin Ahmed, the home minister and a senior BNP leader, has emerged as the government’s primary voice defending the move. He previously led political dialogue in adopting the July National Charter and now articulates the government’s position in parliament.
Defending the decision, Ahmed said the government remains committed to stronger legislation but could not process all ordinances within a short timeframe.“We have committed to bringing stronger laws,” he told Al Jazeera. “But reviewing 133 ordinances within 10 to 12 days is a massive task. Some laws will be brought later after proper discussion.”
He said the government wants to avoid inconsistencies across different laws, particularly in areas such as human rights and criminal accountability. “If different laws define offences and penalties differently, that can lead to injustice,” he said, explaining the need to harmonise provisions across legal frameworks.
Ahmed also indicated that the government is considering integrating provisions on enforced disappearances into existing mechanisms, such as the ICT, rather than creating multiple parallel legal frameworks. “Creating multiple institutions and overlapping systems could lead to confusion and injustice,” he said, suggesting a more consolidated legal approach.
On judicial reform, he emphasised the need for balance rather than absolute institutional autonomy. “There must be harmonious cooperation between state institutions,” he said, questioning whether granting unchecked independence to any single institution would be beneficial for governance.
Ahmed said consultations involving lawyers, judges, political parties, civil society and constitutional experts would begin soon. “We will start discussions with all stakeholders,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that the Ministry of Law is expected to begin the consultation process from May 15. He also maintained that the government remains committed to the broader reform framework outlined in the July National Charter, but said disagreements over implementation – particularly regarding interim-era executive orders – need to be resolved through dialogue.
Opposition leaders have taken a sharply different view, framing the rollback as a departure from the reform commitments made after the 2024 uprising.
They argue that the move undermines the July National Charter and risks diluting a public mandate for structural change.
Akhter Hossen, a July uprising leader, member of parliament and deputy chief of the National Citizen Party (NCP) who was involved in the post-uprising reform dialogue, said the government’s approach reflects a shift away from the agreed reform pathway. The NCP is a party that was birthed by student activists who led the protests against Hasina.
“The government is ignoring the will of the people reflected through the referendum,” he told Al Jazeera. He noted that the reform process was designed to go beyond routine legislative changes. “This was not meant to be business as usual,” he said. “The idea was to pursue structural transformation, not just pass or drop laws through a simple parliamentary majority.”
Hossain warned that relying solely on conventional parliamentary procedures could dilute the scope of reforms. “If you reduce a structural reform process to ordinary legislative handling, then naturally many of its core elements will be weakened or lost,” he said.
Opposition figures outside parliament have struck an even sharper tone.
Mohammad Shishir Manir, Central Executive Council member of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (BJI) and a lawyer at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, accused the government of reversing key safeguards intended to control executive power. The Jamaat is Bangladesh’s principal opposition party.
“These ordinances were about distributing,” he told Al Jazeera. “By removing them, power remains centralised. And centralised power is always dangerous.”
He also raised concerns about accountability mechanisms, particularly in cases of enforced disappearances and corruption. “If these legal protections are not in place, then many cases may not even reach the stage of investigation,” he said, warning that victims could be left without recourse. Manir added that the rollback sends a broader political signal. “It tells people that even after a major political change, the structure of power remains the same,” he said.
Jamaat chief Shafiqur Rahman has warned of a street protest movement against the government.“Movements have already started,” he said at a recent gathering, calling on supporters to continue mobilising until the reform agenda is restored.
Analysts say the developments go beyond individual ordinances and reflect a broader struggle over how power and accountability are being reshaped in post-uprising Bangladesh.
Jon Danilowicz, a retired US diplomat who served in Bangladesh and is now president of Right to Freedom, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit human rights organisation, said the rollback risks weakening institutional safeguards established after the uprising.
“These are certainly worrying developments,” he told Al Jazeera, warning that a return to pre-2024 legal frameworks could leave the executive “without sufficient independent checks and balances”.
He stressed that the reforms were not only about addressing past abuses but preventing their recurrence. “A credible deterrent is essential to ensure security forces do not engage in such abuses again,” he said, adding that accountability mechanisms must convince both those who give orders and those who carry them out that they will ultimately be held responsible.
While acknowledging parliament’s legal authority to revise Yunus-era laws, Danilowicz said the issue ultimately comes down to political responsibility. “The real question is whether the government respects the will of the people who supported the July Charter and demanded reform,” he said, adding that the current government still has an opportunity to “prove the sceptics wrong”.
Domestically, analysts have framed the rollback as a signal of deeper political intent.
Hossain said the move raises doubts about the government’s commitment to reform. “This is a clear indication the government is not serious about reforms,” he told Al Jazeera.
Still, he added, the BNP government under Prime Minister Tarique Rahman deserved more time to prove itself. “I want to give the government the benefit of doubt, because the government has said they will address all the issues.”
Mubashar Hasan, a political observer and adjunct researcher at Western Sydney University’s Humanitarian and Development Research Initiative, said the pushback faced by the government over the reforms showed that it was struggling to build public trust, particularly in communicating the intent behind policy shifts.
“The lack of clarity has contributed to confusion and scepticism both domestically and internationally,” he added.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。