Paris, Feb 11 (NationPress) Numerous global human rights organisations have raised their voices against the “July Mass Uprising (Protection and Determination of Liability) Ordinance, 2026,” enacted by the interim government of Bangladesh led by Muhammad Yunus. This ordinance provides legal protection and indemnity to those involved in the 2024 protests that led to the ousting of the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government.

A gazette notification regarding this ordinance was published by the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division of Bangladesh’s law ministry on January 25.

In a collective statement, ten human rights organisations indicated that the ordinance allows impunity for crimes committed under the guise of “political resistance,” directly infringing on the Constitution of Bangladesh, international human rights laws, and the core tenets of justice. They described this action as a blatant and serious breach of human rights.

“The fundamental principle of the ordinance is to provide immunity for actions taken under the label of 'political resistance'. However, historical context and international law clearly indicate that violent actions justified politically—particularly grave crimes like loss of life—must never be exempt from legal scrutiny. When the state legislates to shield a certain group from judicial accountability, it fosters a culture of impunity instead of justice,” the statement highlighted.

“Pertaining to events from July and August, the ordinance stipulates the dismissal of all prior criminal cases and forbids the initiation of future cases. Consequently, numerous families who have suffered the loss of children, parents, siblings, or loved ones to violence receive a clear message from the state: their grief, losses, and quest for truth will go unacknowledged legally. This situation signifies not only a denial of legal recourse but also a significant violation of human rights,” it further stated.

Expressing grave concern, the human rights organisations pointed out that the term “political resistance,” which lacks a specific, predictable, or internationally accepted legal definition, poses a serious risk that extrajudicial killings, property destruction, and violent crimes might be protected under the guise of “political resistance.”

“Thus, the law creates an ambiguous area where the distinction between criminal behaviour and political actions can be unjustly redefined. A basic principle of the rule of law is that laws must be explicit so that citizens can discern which behaviours are criminal and which are not. This ordinance fundamentally undermines that principle,” they emphasized.

Stressing that the ordinance establishes a deeply alarming precedent for global human rights safeguards, the organisations concluded, “Political stability cannot be achieved by circumventing justice, and no democratic future can be constructed by silencing the voices of victims.”