Since assuming a policymaking position in the BNP government, Humaiun Kobir has repeatedly drawn criticism over his conduct and remarks, raising concerns about the working environment and press freedom.
Just days after taking oath as the state minister for foreign affairs, Kobir responded aggressively to a journalist’s query about his citizenship, raising questions about his prudence and ability to deal with the media.
The question about Kobir’s citizenship is a legitimate one, particularly because he is a member of the government and holds a sensitive portfolio. The public has a right to know about matters that may have a bearing on the eligibility, allegiance and responsibilities of a cabinet member.
Instead of directly addressing the question, Kobir appeared to adopt an adversarial approach towards the media at a press briefing on Monday.
Responding to journalists who raised the issue, Kobir said on camera: “Which newspaper, exactly (wrote about me)? Who is so bothered by this that they won’t let (me) do the work, huh? So why are they so bothered? Are they getting worked up over 2008 again? Are they getting that Moinuddin-Fakhruddin-era itch again? Or what?”
The response was widely viewed as inappropriate for a cabinet member and failed to address the central issue of citizenship. More importantly, the confrontational tone risks creating an environment in which journalists may feel discouraged from asking legitimate questions of those in power.
A free press is an essential component of democratic governance. Government officials, particularly ministers and state ministers, are expected to respond to questions from journalists with professionalism, even when the questions are uncomfortable or critical.
Kobir’s remarks are particularly concerning given Bangladesh’s recent experience of media restrictions and political pressure on journalists. During the previous Awami League-led government, journalists were often accused of being politically motivated when they raised sensitive questions. Such an approach contributed to an atmosphere in which self-censorship became a concern.
The issue could have been resolved simply by providing a clear explanation.
Responding to a question on Tuesday, Law Minister Asaduzzaman said Kobir did not hold dual citizenship. “It is called a ‘deeming clause’. When he was sworn in, we did so in accordance with the Constitution,” he said.
The law minister’s explanation provided an answer to the substantive question that Kobir himself did not offer on Monday.
Repeated concerns over conduct
This is not the first time Kobir’s conduct or remarks have attracted criticism. His behaviour and language have also raised concerns about the working environment within the foreign ministry at a time when Bangladesh’s diplomatic engagement is expanding and the country is seeking to strengthen relations with major international partners.
Kobir has on occasions used derogatory language about officials, including describing some as “utterly incompetent”. Such comments can affect morale and contribute to an unhealthy institutional environment.
In March, Kobir – who was then foreign affairs adviser to the prime minister – also publicly criticised the then Bangladesh high commissioner to the United Kingdom. He alleged that she had failed to safeguard Bangladesh’s interests and had engaged in divisive behaviour favouring a particular political community in the UK. He also described her transfer as “good news”.
Public criticism of a serving senior diplomat by a senior policymaker is unusual and could potentially undermine both the officer’s standing and Bangladesh’s diplomatic image abroad.
A state minister responsible for foreign affairs carries an additional responsibility to maintain professional standards in public communication. Diplomatic work depends not only on formal negotiations but also on credibility, restraint and institutional discipline.
Kobir’s latest response deserves scrutiny not simply as an exchange between a politician and journalists, but as a matter of public conduct. A straightforward question about citizenship warranted a straightforward answer. Resorting to sarcasm and political insinuation risks reinforcing a culture of intolerance towards scrutiny that democratic institutions are expected to move beyond.
