Since assuming office on August 8, 2024, the Yunus-led interim government has positioned itself as a transitional caretaker promising reform, accountability, and a clean break from the alleged excesses of the former Awami League regime. However, in a glaring contradiction to its own rhetoric, it has failed to reconstitute two of Bangladesh’s most critical statutory watchdogs: the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Information Commission. This sustained inaction—now stretching well over six months is not a mere bureaucratic lapse; it is an alarming dereliction of democratic responsibility.

Crippling Institutional Oversight

Bangladesh has, in recent months, witnessed numerous human rights violations including the excessive use of force by security forces, suppression of student protests, communal violence, and widespread allegations of media censorship. Yet, during this volatile period, both the NHRC and the Information Commission remain vacant shells, entirely non-operational. Following the ouster of the Awami League, many politically appointed officials were either removed or resigned including the Chief Information Commissioner (suspended on September 10) and the full NHRC panel (resigned on November 7). Since then, no steps have been taken to reconstitute these commissions, despite the statutory mechanisms already in place.

This strategic vacuum is deeply concerning for a government that has repeatedly promised transparency, institutional independence, and the rule of law. The legal provision for these bodies is clear: the President appoints commissioners based on the recommendations of a selection committee. Yet, the selection committees themselves have not been formed—a wilful delay that smacks of administrative indifference, or worse, deliberate obfuscation.

A Government of Rights Activists, Now Silent

Ironically, many of the current advisers in the interim cabinet previously led or were associated with rights-based organisations. Some were even vocal critics of the former regime’s assault on civil liberties. Their deafening silence now raises serious questions about their authenticity and credibility. Why has this group of supposed reformers not prioritised the reactivation of core democratic institutions? What explains their failure to champion mechanisms they once so passionately advocated for?

The answer, perhaps, lies in political expediency. By leaving these bodies inactive, the Yunus administration ensures no statutory oversight of government excesses, no independent inquiries into custodial deaths or forced disappearances, no official scrutiny of media clampdowns, and no institutional challenge to the shrinking civic space. In short, a vacuum of accountability that allows the government to operate unchecked.

Token Internationalism, Domestic Erosion

To its credit, the Yunus government has signed an MoU with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), allowing a rights mission to operate in Bangladesh for three years. But this is not a substitute for a functional NHRC rooted in domestic legal architecture. International observers can monitor, but only a national commission has the legal mandate to investigate, issue recommendations, and initiate redress in line with national priorities.

Similarly, the Information Commission, whose central task is ensuring citizens’ access to information, has never been more relevant. Amid soaring public demand for transparency particularly regarding the government’s opaque decisions, backdoor dealings, and crisis management failures the commission could have acted as a vital bridge between state and society. Its absence widens the chasm of distrust and weakens democratic resilience, especially with a critical national election approaching.

Reform, Not Cosmetic Change

The failure to reconstitute these bodies is not just about staffing gaps. It reflects a deeper resistance to institutional reform and a preference for control over accountability. If this government is sincere about its reformist image, it must not only fill the vacant chairs but also empower these commissions through legislative and operational reform. That includes ensuring tenure security, financial autonomy, and investigative independence.

Conclusion: A Government in Breach of Its Own Promise

In failing to revive the NHRC and the Information Commission, the Yunus-led government has not just broken a promise, it has undermined the very principles it claims to uphold. In a country still grappling with post-authoritarian fatigue, institutional silence is not neutrality, it is complicity. The time for excuses has long passed. The government must immediately constitute the selection committees, appoint commissioners, and move to legally empower both the NHRC and the Information Commission. Without them, talks of democratic transition are hollow, and governance remains hostage to opacity and impunity.