Economist and policy analyst Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya has strongly criticised the proposed Human Rights Commission Act 2025, warning against the re-establishment of a powerless institution lacking authority and credibility.
Speaking at a discussion hosted by the Citizens’ Platform on Saturday, titled “Draft Human Rights Commission Act 2025”, Debapriya, the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) Distinguished Fellow, said the people of Bangladesh no longer want a symbolic commission “without teeth or spine.”
“People do not want another powerless human rights commission that exists only in name,” Debapriya said. “A commission without power or accountability does more harm than good. We’ve already seen what happens when such bodies exist just for show.”
He recalled that the concept of a national human rights commission first emerged during the 2007 caretaker administration led by Fakhruddin Ahmed. By 2009, a draft law had been prepared to set the foundation for such a body. However, according to Debapriya, the Awami League government later overhauled the draft unilaterally and pushed it through parliament – resulting in a commission that ultimately proved ineffective.
“A spineless good man was made the head of the commission,” Debapriya remarked. “But no matter how virtuous a person is, if they lack courage and independence, they cannot lead a human rights body that holds the powerful accountable.”
He noted that while the previous Human Rights Commission was dissolved by the interim government in November 2024, no effective replacement has been presented in the nearly one year since. The newly proposed draft law, he added, is riddled with loopholes and lacks clear reform.
Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua also raised several concerns about the new draft legislation, noting that it inherits many flaws from its predecessor.
“There’s no clear timeframe for addressing complaints, and it’s unclear whether a person with dual citizenship can serve on the commission. The draft is also vague on funding – whether it will be allocated directly from the national budget or through other channels remains unspecified,” he said.
He added that the previous law allowed serving government officials to be appointed as commission members, which created a clear conflict of interest. The new version, he noted, fails to clarify whether this problematic clause has been removed.
Sanjida Islam, coordinator of Mayer Daak, a platform representing families of victims of enforced disappearances, shared her frustration with the former commission’s performance.
“Every time we approached the Human Rights Commission, they simply sent letters to the Home Ministry and marked their task as complete. That was the extent of their involvement,” she said.
Debapriya echoed her frustration, stating that the commission would boast about achieving 100% of its annual targets — when in reality, its main activity consisted of issuing letters and avoiding confrontation.
Human rights activists, legal experts, UN officials, and representatives from foreign missions, also joined the discussion and shared their views.
