National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) commissioners have issued an open letter challenging the government’s decision to repeal the NHRC Ordinance, alleging that the repeal was based on “misinformation” presented in Parliament.
The letter, signed by NHRC Chairman Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and members Nur Khan, Ilira Dewan, Md Shariful Islam, and Nabila Idris, was released following the passage of the National Human Rights Commission (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill.
The bill scrapped the interim government’s recent ordinances and reinstated the 2009 Act enacted during the Awami League regime.
Response to ‘misinformation’
The commissioners categorised their concerns into three sections – “Response to misinformation presented in Parliament,” “The government’s actual objections,” and “Proposals for the quality of future laws.”
They argued that the National Human Rights Commission Ordinance was the foundational law for the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Ordinance and the July Uprising Protection and Liability Determination Ordinance. They claimed these three are “inseparably linked.”
Addressing claims made in Parliament that the punishment for enforced disappearance was “only 10 years,” the commissioners stated that the ordinance actually provided for various penalties, including the death penalty and life imprisonment, depending on the severity of the crime.
They further refuted claims regarding the lack of investigation deadlines and fine recovery methods, asserting that the ordinance clearly defined these procedures and included penalties for failing to submit reports on time – provisions they claim are missing from the reinstated 2009 Act.
Regarding the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) Act, the commissioners argued it is insufficient for “isolated” cases of disappearance. While the ICT handles widespread or systematic “crimes against humanity,” the ordinance was designed to address individual criminal acts.
They warned that the repeal leaves disappearances occurring after 11 April without a specific criminal definition in the penal code, potentially depriving victims of effective remedies.
‘Institutional independence at risk’
The commissioners alleged that the government’s primary objective was to limit the Commission’s legal independence. Under the ordinance, the Commission was accountable to the President, the chief justice, the auditor general, and civil society.
However, under the 2009 Act, the Commission effectively returns to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Law.
They also highlighted that the 2009 Act strips the Commission of the power to investigate security forces without prior government permission—a requirement they deemed “ineffective” when the forces themselves are accused.
They expressed concern that increasing government representation in selection committees would lead to “politicisation” of appointments.
Law minister’s explanation
Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman dismissed the commissioners’ letter as a “completely wrong interpretation.”
Providing a detailed explanation to the media, Asaduzzaman addressed the sentencing controversy.
He said, “If you look at the law, it clearly says the punishment can be life imprisonment or a maximum of 10 years. Now, what does ‘maximum 10 years’ mean? It means not more than 10 years.
“Therefore, ‘maximum 10 years’ means the court has the jurisdiction to give punishment for one hour, one day, one month, or any period within this limit. So, how is [my statement] contradictory?”
Regarding the investigation process, Asaduzzaman noted that while there is a specific timeframe for submitting a report, the law lacks clear instructions on how long it should take to reach a decision once the report is received.
When asked if he would provide a formal written response to the commissioners, the minister declined. “Their points are based on misconceptions and are not correct,” he said.
“Why should I give them a written reply? There is no need. I believe the people of the country can understand the matter.”
