Bangladesh’s newly seated parliament has cancelled 23 reform ordinances, including measures on human rights and judicial oversight, introduced after the 2024 student-led uprising. These actions raise questions about the government’s commitment to the structural changes promised following former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s removal from power. Opposition leaders argue this undermines a public mandate for reform, a mandate solidified by a nationwide referendum.
The parliamentary review, concluded in recent days, saw 23 out of 133 interim government ordinances either formally repealed or allowed to lapse. These measures, enacted by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus’s administration after Hasina's ouster, aimed to enhance accountability within government and security forces. Their removal affects critical areas such as human rights protections, judicial independence, police reform, and anti-corruption oversight, stirring immediate political friction.
Among the most contested reversals is the ordinance concerning the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The 2025 ordinance had expanded the NHRC’s powers significantly. It granted the commission authority to investigate allegations against state agencies, including police and security forces, set clear timelines for inquiries, and provided greater administrative and financial autonomy.
Its repeal reinstates a 2009 law. This older statute limits the commission to requesting investigation reports from the government rather than conducting its own inquiries into security forces. This is a critical distinction.
Nabila Idris, a former NHRC commissioner, sharply criticized the government's rationale. She told Al Jazeera that the government’s stated objections regarding legal ambiguities were already addressed within the ordinance itself. “The government is bringing up spurious complaints about the ordinances,” Idris stated, emphasizing the need for robust legal protections. She cautioned that weakening such safeguards invites abuse. “Right now, there seems to be a belief that political will alone is enough, even if legal protections are weak.
But that is not how accountability works.”
The issue of enforced disappearances represents another flashpoint. Human rights organizations have documented numerous cases under Hasina’s 15-year rule where individuals were arrested by security forces and subsequently disappeared or were found dead. The Yunus administration established a Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances.
It verified 1,569 cases, out of over 1,900 complaints received. Families of victims have long demanded legal recognition of this crime. The repealed ordinance sought to address this by explicitly defining enforced disappearance as a criminal offense.
It established clear procedures for investigation and prosecution, offering a legal pathway for victims’ families to seek justice. Its lapse creates a legal grey area. Idris, also a member of the inquiry commission, warned about the consequences. “If a crime is not clearly defined, it becomes difficult to punish.” She added, “Leaving that space open is like leaving a door unlocked – eventually, someone will walk through it.” The existing criminal law lacks a clear definition, and the International Crimes Tribunal only handles such cases when they are part of a widespread pattern, leaving individual cases without clear recourse.
Proposed judicial reforms have also fallen by the wayside. The discarded ordinances included plans for an independent Supreme Court secretariat and a new council-based system for appointing judges. These measures aimed to reduce executive influence over the judiciary, a persistent concern in Bangladesh’s political landscape.
Their removal means the traditional system, where the executive plays a substantial role in judicial appointments and administration, largely remains. Journalist and political analyst Akbar Hossain expressed concern about the balance of power. “A judiciary is expected to function independently,” Hossain told Al Jazeera. “If administrative and appointment processes remain under executive influence, then that independence becomes limited in practice.”
The government, however, frames these actions as a necessary legislative review. At a joint news briefing on April 13 in Dhaka, Law Minister, Home Minister, and Chief Whip argued that several ordinances, including those on enforced disappearance and NHRC, required further scrutiny. Salahuddin Ahmed, the Home Minister and a senior Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader, has emerged as the principal voice defending these decisions.
He previously participated in the dialogue that adopted the July National Charter. Ahmed maintained that the government remains committed to stronger legislation. He cited the logistical challenge of reviewing 133 ordinances within a mere 10 to 12 days. “We have committed to bringing stronger laws,” he told Al Jazeera. “But reviewing 133 ordinances within 10 to 12 days is a massive task.
Some laws will be brought later after proper discussion.” He also pointed to the need to avoid inconsistencies across different legal frameworks, particularly in defining offenses and penalties. The math does not add up on the government’s timeline excuse; a legislative body has more than ten days to process such foundational laws. On the issue of enforced disappearances, Ahmed suggested integrating provisions into existing mechanisms like the International Crimes Tribunal rather than creating multiple parallel legal frameworks. “Creating multiple institutions and overlapping systems could lead to confusion and injustice,” he explained, advocating for a more consolidated approach.
Regarding judicial reform, he stressed the importance of harmonious cooperation between state institutions over “unchecked independence.” His arguments suggest a preference for centralized control masked as legislative efficiency. Follow the leverage, not the rhetoric; the government seeks to retain critical influence. Ahmed also stated that consultations involving lawyers, judges, political parties, civil society, and constitutional experts would commence soon.
He told Al Jazeera that the Ministry of Law expects to begin this consultation process from May 15. The minister reiterated the government’s commitment to the broader reform framework outlined in the July National Charter, but indicated that disagreements over interim-era executive orders required resolution through dialogue. Opposition leaders have taken a starkly different view.
They frame the rollback as a clear departure from the reform commitments made after the 2024 uprising. Akhter Hossen, a July uprising leader, Member of Parliament, and Deputy Chief of the National Citizen Party (NCP), which emerged from the student movement, argues the government is ignoring the public mandate. “The government is ignoring the will of the people reflected through the referendum,” Hossen told Al Jazeera, noting the reform process was meant for structural transformation, not routine legislative handling. Here is what they are not telling you: this is a struggle for the very definition of the post-Hasina era.
Mohammad Shishir Manir, a Central Executive Council member of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (BJI) and a Supreme Court lawyer, accused the government of reversing key safeguards. The Jamaat is Bangladesh’s principal opposition party. “These ordinances were about distributing [power],” Manir told Al Jazeera. “By removing them, power remains centralised. And centralised power is always dangerous.” He warned that without these legal protections, many cases might not even reach investigation, leaving victims without recourse.
He believes the rollback sends a broader political signal: that even after a major political change, the structure of power remains largely unchanged. Jamaat chief Shafiqur Rahman has already warned of intensified street protests against the government. “Movements have already started,” Rahman declared at a recent gathering, urging supporters to continue mobilization until the reform agenda is reinstated. This indicates a deepening political struggle, moving beyond parliamentary debates into public demonstrations.
Jon Danilowicz, a retired U.S. diplomat and president of Right to Freedom, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights organization, described these as “worrying developments.” He warned Al Jazeera that a return to pre-2024 legal frameworks could leave the executive “without sufficient independent checks and balances.” Danilowicz emphasized that the reforms aimed not only to address past abuses but also to prevent their recurrence. “A credible deterrent is essential to ensure security forces do not engage in such abuses again,” he said, asserting that accountability mechanisms must convince those giving and carrying out orders that they will be held responsible. Danilowicz acknowledged parliament’s legal authority to revise laws. But he stressed that the issue ultimately comes down to political responsibility. “The real question is whether the government respects the will of the people who supported the July Charter and demanded reform,” he stated.
He added that the current government still has an opportunity to “prove the sceptics wrong.” Domestically, political observer Mubashar Hasan noted the government’s struggle to build public trust. He told Al Jazeera, “The lack of clarity has contributed to confusion and scepticism both domestically and internationally.”
This rollback risks undermining the foundational principles agreed upon after the 2024 uprising. It directly impacts human rights protections, judicial independence, and public trust in governance. The core issue is the distribution of power.
Failure to implement these reforms, or to replace them with equally robust alternatives, could define the trajectory of Bangladesh’s political transition for years to come. The government’s actions test the legitimacy of the post-Hasina political settlement and the public’s enduring demand for accountability. - The new parliament repealed 23 interim ordinances, including key human rights and judicial reforms. - Opposition leaders and civil society groups accuse the government of centralizing power and ignoring a public mandate for structural change. - The government cites legislative ambiguities and time constraints, promising revised laws after consultations. - International observers express concern that the reversals weaken institutional safeguards established after the 2024 uprising. Looking ahead, the promised consultations, scheduled to begin on May 15 under the Ministry of Law, will be critical.
Stakeholders will watch for concrete proposals on the NHRC, enforced disappearances, and judicial reform. The government's ability to craft new legislation that genuinely addresses the core concerns of accountability and institutional independence, while also navigating the complexities of its parliamentary majority, will shape public perception. Expect continued street protests if these consultations fail to produce satisfactory outcomes for the opposition, keeping the political landscape volatile.
Key Takeaways
— - The new parliament repealed 23 interim ordinances, including key human rights and judicial reforms.
— - Opposition leaders and civil society groups accuse the government of centralizing power and ignoring a public mandate for structural change.
— - The government cites legislative ambiguities and time constraints, promising revised laws after consultations.
— - International observers express concern that the reversals weaken institutional safeguards established after the 2024 uprising.
Source: Al Jazeera
