Watchdog slams ruling party's 'unilateral' legislative process

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has voiced strong objections to the legislative process in the 13th Jatiya Sangsad, alleging the ruling party has unilaterally used its parliamentary majority. TIB executive director Iftekharuzzaman stated that bills are being introduced as supplementary business, bypassing standard procedures and preventing meaningful debate or scrutiny.

“

None of these procedures was followed in the case of the Invest Bangladesh Act, 2026.

The watchdog pointed to the Invest Bangladesh Act, 2026, as an example where established parliamentary practices were ignored. Typically, bills are referred to a standing committee before consideration. However, TIB noted this procedure was not followed. Furthermore, copies of the Invest Bangladesh Bill were distributed only moments before its tabling, denying lawmakers adequate time to review it before its swift passage.

TIB also highlighted concerns regarding the formation of parliamentary standing committees. The inclusion of State Minister Shahe Alam, who has faced allegations of conflicts of interest, in committees overseeing the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Home Affairs was specifically criticized. TIB questioned the effectiveness of a cabinet member overseeing another ministry's accountability, deeming it a practice that undermines the purpose of these committees and is unusual in the post-1990 parliamentary landscape.

“

The unilateral passage of bills, which violates constitutional principles and parliamentary rules governing the legislative process, raises the question of how the present parliament differs from that of the authoritarian era.

The anti-corruption watchdog further alleged that bills like the Bangladesh Medical University (Amendment) Bill, 2026, and the Public Examinations (Offences) (Amendment) Bill, 2026, were introduced without prior notice. TIB suggested that the ruling party's majority has led to the disregard of opposition views, raising questions about the parliament's difference from an authoritarian era.

“

The extent to which a member of the cabinet would be able to oversee the activities of another ministry and ensure its accountability remains questionable. This has effectively undermined the very purpose of parliamentary standing committees at the outset. No parliament has observed such a practice, particularly in the post-1990 period.