HRFB, TIB urge major overhaul of draft Human Rights Commission law over independence concerns

The Human Rights Forum Bangladesh (HRFB) and Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) on Thursday urged the government to substantially revise the draft National Human Rights Act, 2026, warning that several proposed provisions could undermine the independence, autonomy and effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

The organizations said the draft law includes some improvements over the National Human Rights Commission Ordinance, 2025, which was issued by the interim government.

However, they said the proposed legislation also introduces significant changes that are inconsistent with the Paris Principles, the international standards governing national human rights institutions.

According to HRFB and TIB, the changes could increase executive influence over the Commission and weaken its institutional independence.

The government drafted the proposed law on May 17 following recommendations from a parliamentary special committee and published it on the website of the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division for public consultation.

In a joint statement, HRFB and TIB identified 24 recommendations for revising the draft legislation, arguing that the proposed law falls short of ensuring an independent and effective human rights watchdog.

One of their principal concerns relates to Section 3, which no longer states that the Commission "shall be an independent body and shall not be under any ministry or division of the government"—a provision that was included in the 2025 ordinance.

According to the organizations, removing this language creates an opportunity for executive control over the Commission, contrary to the Paris Principles. They called for restoring an explicit legal guarantee that the NHRC will remain outside the authority of any government ministry or division.

The organizations also criticized the draft for limiting the Commission's authority to investigate allegations of human rights violations involving law enforcement agencies and security forces.

Under the proposed Section 20, the Commission would only be able to request reports from the relevant force or the government and make recommendations based on those reports.

HRFB and TIB said the provision removes powers contained in the 2025 ordinance that allowed the Commission to independently investigate allegations, recommend disciplinary action, compensation and administrative measures.

They urged the government to repeal the provision and restore the Commission's independent investigative authority over members of law enforcement and security agencies.

The groups further said the draft weakens the Commission's ability to inspect places where individuals may be subjected to enforced disappearance or torture.

They noted that the proposed law does not authorize regular inspections of detention facilities operated by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, surveillance bodies or the armed forces, nor does it empower the Commission to recommend the closure of unlawful detention facilities or action against those responsible.

HRFB and TIB recommended expanding the Commission's powers to conduct inspections, investigations and recommend accountability measures where illegal detention facilities are identified.

The organizations also raised concerns over complaint investigations under Section 16, saying the draft gives commissioners broad discretion to decide whether complaints should proceed to investigation, potentially creating room for arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.

They called for provisions allowing the Commission to initiate investigations based not only on formal complaints but also on credible reports published in the media or received from other sources.

They also proposed requiring the Commission to publicly explain any decision not to investigate widely reported allegations of human rights violations.

Another recommendation concerns complaints filed by vulnerable groups. The organizations said the draft contains no special procedures to facilitate complaints by women, children, religious minorities, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities or other marginalized communities.

They proposed establishing dedicated complaint and investigation units for such groups and deploying mobile teams to receive complaints from remote and underserved areas.

The draft law's provisions governing appointments also came under scrutiny.

HRFB and TIB objected to the proposed composition of the commissioner selection committee, which would include the Speaker of Parliament, two ministers, one ruling-party lawmaker and the Cabinet Secretary.

According to the organizations, such a structure could allow the executive branch to dominate appointments and compromise the neutrality of the Commission.

Instead, they recommended restoring the broader selection committee proposed in the 2025 ordinance, comprising an Appellate Division judge nominated by the Chief Justice, representatives from both the ruling and opposition parties, an academic, a journalist, a civil society representative and a representative of Indigenous or marginalized communities.

They also called for legal provisions requiring committee members to remain free from partisan political influence.

The organizations further recommended greater transparency in the appointment process by publishing objective evaluation criteria, the names of shortlisted candidates and the final nominees recommended to the President.

They also urged reinstating mandatory interviews for shortlisted applicants, a provision included in the 2025 ordinance but omitted from the current draft.

HRFB and TIB also questioned eligibility criteria for commissioners.

They opposed a provision allowing serving government officials to become commissioners while remaining on leave from public service, arguing that such appointments could create conflicts of interest.

They recommended requiring commissioners to demonstrate political neutrality, integrity and a proven commitment to protecting human rights, while introducing an age limit of 35 to 75 years.

The organizations also urged the government to restore mandatory representation of women and marginalized communities on the Commission.

They noted that the 2025 ordinance required at least one commissioner from Indigenous or disadvantaged communities and at least two women commissioners.

The current draft removes those guarantees and instead conditions women's appointments on the availability of "qualified candidates."

According to HRFB and TIB, the proposed approach risks reducing pluralistic representation required under the Paris Principles.

Concerns were also raised about staffing arrangements.

The draft permits up to 30 percent of Commission staff to be government officials on deputation. HRFB and TIB argued that extensive reliance on seconded civil servants could affect the Commission's operational independence and impartiality, particularly during investigations involving state institutions.

They proposed reducing the ceiling to 10 percent, requiring public justification for such appointments and ensuring that recruitment remains open, transparent and merit-based.

The organizations also expressed concern over provisions governing the Commission's finances.

They said the draft makes the Commission's annual budget dependent on government discretion, unlike the 2025 ordinance, which required the government to consider the Commission's own budget proposal.

The draft also removes provisions ensuring constitutional protection for commissioners' salaries and allowances under Article 88 of the Constitution.

HRFB and TIB recommended restoring both safeguards to strengthen the Commission's financial independence and protect it from executive interference.

The organizations further objected to provisions allowing the Commission to generate income through unspecified business activities, saying such arrangements could create conflicts of interest and distract the institution from its statutory mandate.

They also criticized the draft for assigning rule-making authority to the government instead of the Commission, arguing that allowing the executive to determine operational rules would weaken institutional autonomy.

They recommended giving the Commission authority to formulate its own regulations with the President's approval.

In addition, HRFB and TIB proposed requiring the Commission's annual report to be tabled directly in Parliament through the Speaker, followed by public hearings and consultations with civil society to strengthen accountability.

The organizations said the draft law does not adequately reflect the government's commitment to protecting human rights in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or lessons from Bangladesh's recent experience with authoritarian governance.

They urged the government to incorporate the proposed amendments before finalizing the legislation to establish an independent, autonomous and effective National Human Rights Commission consistent with international standards.

---