Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has strongly condemned the state minister for foreign affairs, without directly referring to Humaiun Kobir, for his “aggressive” response to journalists questioning his dual citizenship.
Describing his behaviour as reminiscent of the “shoot the messenger” practice of the ousted authoritarian regime, the anti-graft organisation has called for an immediate end to self-defeating attempts to undermine media freedom, independent journalism, freedom of expression, and the people’s right to access information.
According to multiple media reports, the state minister holds foreign citizenship and has been involved in active politics in the country concerned. TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman pointed out that the appointment of a dual citizen as state minister for foreign affairs under the technocrat quota is unconstitutional.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman explained that under Article 56(2) of the Constitution, a person appointed as a minister or state minister who is not a lawmaker must be eligible for election to Parliament.
However, under Article 66(2)(c), any individual who acquires citizenship of a foreign state or acknowledges allegiance to such a state is disqualified from being elected as a Member of Parliament.
Moreover, Article 66(2A) explicitly addresses the requirement regarding the renunciation of foreign citizenship in cases of dual citizenship.
Consequently, the state minister’s appointment under the technocrat quota while retaining dual citizenship conflicts with the Constitution. By taking on the role without providing a clear explanation of his stance on the matter, the state minister has called his own appointment into question.
Instead of providing direct and factual responses to questions raised by journalists in the public interest, the state minister responded with aggressive counter-questions, asking “who is reporting the news?” and “why are you so bothered about it?”
Dr Iftekharuzzaman emphasised that the identity of those reporting the news or raising questions is irrelevant.
“The fundamental question is whether he retained his foreign citizenship when he assumed office as state minister. he has an obligation to directly address such an obvious constitutional question relating to the public interest,” Dr Iftekharuzzaman said.
He added that following the political change brought about by the bloody July mass uprising, expectations for accountable governance have made the right to ask questions and the public’s right to know more important than ever.
Despite repeated commitments from the highest levels of government to ensure transparency, accountability, and freedom of expression, the state minister’s resentful response is unbecoming of the dignity and responsibility of a state minister.
TIB warned that such behaviour is ethically unacceptable, deeply concerning, and embarrassing for the government.
The organisation further cautioned that an aggressive response from a person holding a responsible state position to legitimate questions of public interest places unreasonable and unwarranted pressure on the journalists concerned and poses a threat to independent journalism.
It risks making it dangerous for journalists to ask uncomfortable questions about those in power, which could foster self-censorship or create a “chilling effect” that ultimately undermines the public’s right to know.
Given the global importance of the position of state minister for Foreign Affairs, TIB warned of possible avoidable reputational embarrassment for Bangladesh.
The watchdog has urged the government to immediately disclose accurate and verifiable information regarding the state minister’s actual citizenship status and take an appropriate decision on the constitutional validity of his appointment.
Moreover, TIB has called on the government to publicly disclose official documentary evidence regarding the citizenship status of any other minister, state minister, or official holding an equivalent position if questions arise regarding their dual citizenship, in the interest of transparency and constitutional accountability.
