Two rights bills deserve more than a rushed stamp of approval
Two bills are now before parliament that may soon become the state's rulebook for addressing the worst rights abuses, but the government seems to be getting them wrong. One bill is meant to set up a credible National Human Rights Commission; the other will codify enforced disappearance as a crime for the first time. Both were meant to mark a clean break from an era of legal impunity. Instead, both are being rushed through parliament without listening to experts and victims, whose voices matter the most.
The pattern is the same in both bills. Local and international rights organisations have all raised the same concern: that complaints against the police, RAB, or other forces would be investigated, at least at first, by the same forces, or by junior police officers who answer to them. This concern has been amply shared with the government, but to little avail. Like the rights groups, past victims of enforced disappearance have also been ignored. Families who have waited for years for a missing relative have asked for an independent body to investigate, not the police or agencies accused of carrying out the disappearances. They have even marched to parliament and sent memoranda to the Speaker.
The speed with which such important bills are being moved is also concerning. Two standing committees being given only two working days to scrutinise them cannot properly consult experts or weigh amendments. Then again, committee members can still recommend changes and force the law and home ministers to answer specific objections on the record. It is also worth noting that the government had earlier pledged to make the laws stronger than the relevant ordinances, but what it eventually did was make them weaker, illustrating a majoritarian mindset with little regard for opposition or expert voices.
However, the opposition walking out of parliament, even before a bill is tabled, may make headlines, but it gives up the voice that actually shapes a law: the amendment process. By staying away, opposition lawmakers are squandering the chance to keep the debate going. Opposition lawmakers must ensure these bills don't pass unchallenged by staying in rather than out of parliament. Their objections may be valid, but walking out of parliament is no way to play the role of an opposition.
For its part, the ruling party, which has the votes to pass these bills regardless of who attends, should use its majority to make them stronger, not just to keep them on schedule. That means giving the National Human Rights Commission real investigative independence, rather than making it depend on the forces it is meant to oversee; putting disappearance investigations in the hands of a genuinely independent body, not the police; and giving the parliamentary standing committees enough time for scrutiny as well as expert and victim consultation. It should close all the gaps that the rights groups have so far pointed out. These important bills deserve much more than a rushed stamp of approval.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments