Why dissolve the SC secretariat?

The government’s recent order to dissolve the Supreme Court secretariat and to remove and transfer the 15 judges assigned to it raises serious questions about the BNP’s commitment to judicial autonomy. The move follows the BNP government’s repeal in April of the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance, 2025; the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025; and the Supreme Court Secretariat (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026. Although the law minister said bills on these matters would later be presented in parliament, the unnecessary closure of the secretariat does not inspire confidence in the party’s commitment to its electoral pledge on judicial independence.

Read more

SC Secretariat dissolved, 15 judges transferred

The secretariat was established by the interim government last December following the issuance of the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025 on November 11, paving the way for the judiciary’s administrative and financial independence. An organogram was later created, 15 lower court judges and several staff members were assigned, and a budget for the remainder of the fiscal year was allocated. Now, all of that has been dismantled. If the BNP government truly intends to establish a secretariat, as it has repeatedly promised, why was it necessary to abolish the existing structure first? These optics do not favour the BNP and appear more like a rollback of reform than its implementation.

Yet, it was the BNP that repeatedly argued that an independent and impartial judiciary could have prevented the legal harassment and persecution of its leaders and activists during the last Awami League regime. Its 31-point outline for structural reform also pledged the establishment of a “separate secretariat for the judiciary…to function under the Supreme Court.” Moreover, despite dissenting on several issues in the July National Charter, the party did not oppose vesting control of subordinate courts with the Supreme Court, establishing a separate judicial secretariat, or enacting a law for appointing Supreme Court judges. And yet, despite coming to power with a huge majority and widespread hopes that it would continue the reforms initiated by the interim government, one of the BNP’s first acts was to repeal the ordinances concerning secretariat and judicial appointments.

Read more

Why is BNP reneging on its own commitments to judicial independence?

The rationale offered by the law minister also appeared weak. In an interview with this daily, he said stakeholder discussions would be held before a new bill on the Supreme Court secretariat is enacted. But why are such discussions again necessary when the ordinance was drafted following extensive consultations during the interim government's tenure? Have the stakeholders drastically changed since then?

Unfortunately, citizens pay the price for the time and money wasted when incumbent governments discard and restart initiatives undertaken by their predecessors. Given what happened to the draft National Human Rights Commission law, it is difficult to trust that the BNP’s proposed secretariat would be any better than the one it dismantled. We can only hope the party will not use its majority to delay judicial autonomy.