FROM PAGE 1

The 2025 ordinance had established a Supreme Judicial Appointment Council, led by the chief justice, to recommend candidates for the Appellate and High Court divisions. Another ordinance created an independent Supreme Court Secretariat with budgetary discretion and authority over the transfer, promotion, and discipline of lower court judges.

Opposition NCP MP Akhtar Hossen objected to repealing the judges’ appointment ordinance, alleging that “partisan” appointments in the past led to the rise of party loyalists like Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury Manik under the influence of Sheikh Hasina.

He also recalled that a writ petition once challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional, but Asaduzzaman, then attorney general, defended it.

Jamaat MP Muhammad Nazibur Rahman opposed the repeal of the Supreme Court Secretariat ordinance. “The bill amounted to a blatant interference in judicial independence and a grave violation of the independence of the apex court,” he said.

He accused the government of trying to control lower courts, saying that judges who did not comply with ministry instructions were previously transferred to remote postings such as Khagrachhari. “This bill is an attempt to bring back that practice,” he said.

Nazibur also termed the move “tantamount to deceiving the people”, adding that the BNP had recorded any note of dissent on the idea of a separate Supreme Court Secretariat in the July National Charter.

Responding, the law minister acknowledged the opposition’s concerns but defended the move.

“The transparency you demand in judicial appointments, the standards you want in judges, the judiciary you envision -- we want the same. We too do not want another ‘Manik’ to be born in Bangladesh,” he said.

He argued that no state organ, including the judiciary, can function without accountability, and invited the opposition to join a special committee for constitutional amendments to define criteria for judicial appointments.

Explaining his earlier stance, he said he had defended the ordinance as attorney general because “the state’s lawyer follows government instructions”.

NHRC

While discussing the National Human Rights Commission (Repeal and Reinstatement) Bill, 2026, NCP lawmaker Hasnat Abdullah opposed the move, arguing the 2009 law enabled rights violations during the Awami League era.

“We have seen the application of this law for 17 long years. During that time, the Human Rights Commission was used as a tool to suppress the opposition and dissenting voices. The commission produced the legitimacy to suppress the BNP. I have heard the commission saying, ‘It is legal to shoot Jamaat leaders and activists in the interest of maintaining human rights.’

“If the 2025 ordinance is allowed to lapse today, the nation will go backward again. This will remain in this parliament as a ‘textbook example’ of a nation falling behind.”

He said the 2009 law effectively turned the commission into a government-controlled body through a selection committee dominated by ruling party figures, adding that even BNP leader and LGRD Minister Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir had once described the NHRC as a “Commission to Suppress the Opposition”.

“Under the 2009 act, prior government permission is required to conduct investigations against these forces. Every member of this parliament knows how transparent an investigation into human rights violations will be if government permission is required to investigate the government itself,” he said.

He said the law is also related to the Enforced Disappearance Ordinance and the July Mass Uprising Indemnity Ordinance. By letting the Human Rights Commission ordinance lapse, the other two ordinances will “effectively be made ornamental”, he added.

In response, the law minister said, “These speeches are much more ‘juicy’ and relevant for street rallies like Paltan Maidan, the Press Club, or Muktangon. I think he [Hasnat] has read everything except the bill itself.”

“If any law is made with such a malafide intent that it will prevent the BNP from functioning upon coming to power, such a biased law will be ineffective from the start,” he said.

He maintained that the government was not scrapping the 2025 provisions but seeking time for broader consultations, alleging that the ordinance had been enacted without adequate stakeholder input.

He claimed that the commission will not be accountable to the government or anyone, because the 2009 law too gives it supremacy.

“If the July charter is to be implemented, let us form a special constitutional amendment committee in this parliament where all discussions will take place. Matters of further scrutiny will come up. The issue of consulting victims of human rights violations will come up,” he said.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The repeal moves followed recommendations from a 13-member parliamentary committee, chaired by BNP MP Zainul Abedin, which reviewed 133 ordinances issued by the interim government.

The report recommended attaching the NHRC to the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division and restructuring its selection committee by adding two more bureaucrats instead of civil society representatives, along with the cabinet secretary.

It also proposed making government permission mandatory to investigate or arrest members of disciplined forces or government officials.

The committee further argued that the 2025 Supreme Court ordinances gave the chief justice excessive powers that could “hinder coordination with the government’s operations”.

31 BILLS PASSED

In total, the Jatiya Sangsad yesterday passed 31 bills to ratify or repeal ordinances issued by the interim government.

These include the Supreme Court Judges Appointment (Repeal) Bill; Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill; National Human Rights Commission (Repeal and Reinstatement) Bill; National Sports Council (Amendment) Bill; Bangabandhu Sports Welfare Foundation (Amendment) Bill; Sheikh Hasina National Youth Development Institute (Amendment) Bill; Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission (Amendment) Bill; Public Procurement (Amendment) Bill; Overseas Employment and Migration (Amendment) Bill; Bangladesh Labour (Amendment) Bill; Local Government (Union Parishad) (Amendment) Bill; and Legal Aid Services (Amendment) Bill.

The others are: Jatiya Muktijhoddha Council (Amendment) Bill; Land Use Control and Agricultural Land Protection Bill; Bangladesh Telecommunication (Amendment) Bill; Bangladesh Gas (Amendment) Bill; Human Organ Transplantation Bill; Foreign Donations (Voluntary Activities) Regulation (Amendment) Bill; Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking and Smuggling of Migrants Bill; Forest and Tree Conservation (Amendment) Bill; Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Novo-Theatre (Amendment) Bill; Bangabandhu Science and Technology Fellowship Trust (Amendment) Bill; Zila Parishad (Amendment) Bill; Local Government (Municipalities) (Amendment) Bill; Local Government (City Corporation) (Amendment) Bill; Upazila Parishad (Amendment) Bill; Rajdhani Unnayan Karatapakkha Bill; Personal Data Protection Bill; Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation (Amendment) Bill; Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill; and Bangladesh Building Regulatory Authority Bill.