FROM PAGE 1

about the NHRC-related ordinances presented in parliament. It also outlined the government’s perceived objections and offered proposals for future legislation.

The letter noted that the government in parliament claimed that an ordinance ensured necessary protection for those involved in the July uprising.

However, the commissioners said that under the July Mass Uprising (Protection and Liability Determination) Ordinance, 2026, ratified by parliament, participants would be protected if deaths occurred due to political resistance during the uprising. If murders were committed by exploiting the chaos, cases would be filed.

To avoid conflicts of interest, the NHRC was tasked with determining which category a death fell into through investigation. However, under the reinstated 2009 act, the commission, now under the law ministry, will require prior government permission to investigate officials of security forces.

They said investigations would instead be carried out by the same security forces involved during the uprising.

“If a government agency is accused, an investigation subject to that same government’s permission is meaningless.

“Consequently, July warriors from all political parties may be at risk in the future.”

The letter systematically addressed what the commissioners called “incorrect information” presented in parliament to justify the repeal.

Contrary to the law minister’s earlier claim that the punishment for enforced disappearance is limited to 10 years, the commissioners said the 2025 Enforced Disappearance Ordinance provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment, depending on the severity of the crime.

They also rejected the government’s assertion that the International Crimes Tribunal Act is sufficient to handle such cases.

“The ICT can only try ‘mass’ disappearances as crimes against humanity. It cannot adjudicate isolated criminal cases of disappearance,” the letter stated.

It added that as of April 11, new cases of enforced disappearance are no longer defined as criminal offences under the reinstated legal framework.

The commissioners further criticised the new selection committee structure, expressing fears of a return to the “politicisation of appointments”. They added that under the reinstated act, 60 percent of the selection committee is executive-leaning, including the home and law ministers.

While the government has promised a “stronger” law after further scrutiny, the outgoing commissioners expressed scepticism, arguing that the 2025 ordinances were already the result of consultations with over 600 stakeholders.

They also noted that it was argued in parliament that the commission was autonomous under both the 2009 and 2025 laws, and therefore equally strong.

However, under the 2009 act, the commission cannot investigate allegations against security forces (section 18), while it could do so under the 2025 ordinance. “Therefore, autonomy does not equate to having effective power,” the letter read.

Referring to the points raised in the letter, Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman said the NHRC’s arguments on punishment under the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Ordinance are “totally incorrect”.

“If you look at the law, it [in section 4] clearly says punishment can be life imprisonment or up to 10 years. Now what does ‘up to 10 years’ mean? It means not exceeding 10 years. So, ‘up to 10 years’ means the court has the discretion to give even one hour, one day, one month, or any period within that limit. So how can this be contradictory? They [NHRC] have clearly misinterpreted this.

“Secondly, I have said in all press conferences and elsewhere that there is a timeframe within which the report must be submitted. But there is no guideline stating how long they will take to make a decision after receiving the report.”