The recent decision by Bangladesh's interim government to cancel the passports of 22 military and security officials has sparked widespread controversy and criticism. This move, unprecedented in its scope and implications, raises serious concerns regarding constitutional rights, international law, and the fundamental principles of justice and rule of law. The decision, ostensibly for being politically aligned with the ousted Hasina regime, not only undermines the democratic values enshrined in Bangladesh's Constitution but also contradicts international legal standards and judicial precedents. The arbitrary nature of this act, executed through an executive order without judicial oversight, reflects a troubling trend towards autocracy and erosion of due process.

Violation of Constitution of Bangladesh

The Constitution of Bangladesh serves as the supreme law of the land, guaranteeing fundamental rights to all citizens, including the right to freedom of movement. Article 36 of the Constitution explicitly states, "Subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, every citizen shall have the right to move freely throughout Bangladesh, to reside and settle in any place therein and to leave and re-enter Bangladesh." By unilaterally canceling the passports of 22 military officials without due process, the interim government has violated this constitutional provision.

The decision lacks transparency and justification, as it was not made following any established legal or judicial process. The Constitution mandates that any restriction on fundamental rights must be reasonable and imposed by law, not through arbitrary executive orders. The absence of a judicial review or opportunity for the accused to defend themselves further compounds the unconstitutionality of this act. Such actions set a dangerous precedent where fundamental rights can be stripped at the whim of the executive, undermining the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Lack of judicial process: Critical questions

The lack of a judicial process raises several critical questions that demand answers:

On what specific grounds were these passports canceled?

What evidence supports the decision?

Were the affected officials given any opportunity to respond to allegations?

What mechanisms exist for them to challenge this decision?

These unanswered questions highlight the arbitrary and opaque nature of the government's actions. Without clear evidence, judicial oversight, or an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, the cancellation of passports stands as a clear violation of both domestic and international legal principles.

Setting a dangerous precedent 

This decision sets a dangerous and alarming precedent that should concern every citizen of Bangladesh. Today, it is 22 military officials who have been targeted; tomorrow, it could be anyone—political opponents, journalists, activists, or ordinary citizens. By canceling passports without judicial oversight or due process, the government has demonstrated its willingness to bypass constitutional safeguards and fundamental rights. Such unchecked executive power creates an environment of fear and uncertainty, where individuals can be arbitrarily deprived of their freedoms. If this trend continues, it risks eroding the democratic foundations of the nation and transforming Bangladesh into a state where basic rights are no longer guaranteed. The rule of law must be upheld to ensure that no individual, regardless of their position or affiliation, is subjected to such arbitrary and unjust actions.

Contradiction with international law

The cancellation of passports also contradicts established international legal standards. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which Bangladesh is a signatory, enshrines the right to freedom of movement in Article 13. It states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Furthermore, Article 15 of the UDHR guarantees the "right to nationality" and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of this right. Article 13(2) specifically affirms the right to leave and return to one's country, a principle that has been blatantly disregarded in this case.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh ratified in 2000, further reinforces these protections. Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees:

"Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own."

Article 12(4) states, "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

As a party to the ICCPR, Bangladesh is legally bound to uphold these provisions. The unilateral cancellation of passports, without legal justification or due process, violates these international commitments and undermines Bangladesh's credibility on the global stage.

Violation of the Vienna Convention 

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides a framework for passport recognition and international travel rights. It sets clear standards for how countries should handle passport-related issues, ensuring that such actions are lawful, transparent, and justifiable. The arbitrary cancellation of passports in this case contravenes these principles, as it was executed without adherence to international norms or procedures.

Contradiction with landmark verdict 

The interim government's decision also contradicts the landmark verdict in the Golam Azam vs Bangladesh case. In this case, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh emphasized the importance of upholding due process and ensuring that no citizen is denied their rights without judicial oversight. The court highlighted that executive actions must align with the Constitution and cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens.

By canceling the passports of 22 military officials without providing them an opportunity to defend themselves, the government has acted in direct contradiction to the principles established in this case. The verdict underscored that even individuals accused of serious crimes are entitled to a fair hearing and legal representation. Denying the accused their right to due process and imposing punitive measures through executive orders reflects a blatant disregard for judicial authority and constitutional safeguards.

Troubling signs of autocracy

One of the most troubling aspects of this decision is the manner in which it was executed. The cancellation of passports was reportedly based on recommendations from the Special Commission on Disappeared Persons and implemented through an executive order by the home ministry. This bypassing of judicial processes is deeply problematic and undermines the rule of law.

In any democratic society, even the most notorious criminals are entitled to a fair trial and the right to defend themselves. The principle of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard) is a cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no one is punished without being given an opportunity to present their case. By denying the 22 officials this fundamental right, the government has acted in a manner more befitting an autocracy than a democracy.

The use of executive power to impose punitive measures without judicial oversight is a clear sign of authoritarianism. It sets a dangerous precedent where individuals can be stripped of their rights arbitrarily, without any recourse to justice. Such actions erode public trust in state institutions and undermine the democratic principles upon which Bangladesh was founded.

Upholding the rule of law

The interim government's decision to cancel the passports of 22 military officials is a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked executive power. It violates the Constitution of Bangladesh, contradicts international legal standards, and disregards judicial precedents. Moreover, it reflects a troubling disregard for due process and the rule of law.

To restore public confidence and uphold democratic values, the government must immediately reverse this decision and ensure that any punitive measures are implemented through established legal processes. The accused individuals must be given an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law in line with constitutional and international legal principles. Judicial oversight and transparency must be prioritized to prevent the abuse of executive power and safeguard the fundamental rights of all citizens.

(The author is a researcher and journalist from Bangladesh. Views expressed are personal. She can be reached at ruminoor@protonmail.com )