More than five months after Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s government assumed office in February 2026, a coalition of eight international human rights organizations—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Access Now—has issued a joint statement that places surveillance reform at the center of Bangladesh’s democratic transition.

The document, dated July 28, 2026, is not merely a list of grievances. It is a legal and structural critique of how the state has expanded its interception capabilities over the past decade, and how recent legislative amendments have, in the signatories’ view, diluted rather than strengthened procedural safeguards. This review examines the statement through the twin lenses of rule of law and international human rights law, assessing the validity of its claims and the urgency of its recommendations.

The Legacy of Unchecked Expansion

Between 2015 and 2025, investigative reports cited in the statement document public expenditure approaching US$ 190 million on surveillance infrastructure across military, intelligence, and civilian law-enforcement agencies. A separate report by The Daily Star corroborated a spend of at least US$ 120 million between 2016 and 2024.

According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Fact-Finding Report on the July and August 2024 protests, this architecture was not confined to traditional counter-terrorism. It was deeply integrated into repression of civil and political rights—facilitating arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearances, and the suppression of dissent. Importantly, the UN report found that these agencies operated under direct executive authority, with no institutionalized parliamentary or independent oversight.

Legislative Regression: From Ordinance to Act

The statement identifies a critical sequence of events that it argues constitutes a legal regression. During the interim administration, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 introduced procedural structures and rights-oriented language. However, the subsequent Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2026, enacted by the current government, removed or significantly diluted those safeguards.

Section 97A: A Case Study in Broad Discretion

While Section 97A retained surveillance and interception powers, it stripped away much of the accountability architecture, procedural specificity, and transparency provisions that had been included in the ordinance. The National Telecommunication Monitoring Centre (NTMC) continues to operate without a clear public-facing statutory mandate, despite a BDT 94.95 crore procurement approved as recently as May 2026 for technologies capable of monitoring, filtering, and blocking online content.

Simultaneously, the Personal Data Protection Act, 2026 and the National Data Management Act, 2026 provide excessive exemptions for national security, public order, and criminal investigations. When read together, the statement argues, these laws enable the collection, aggregation, and sharing of personal data without independent scrutiny or effective redress—a direct challenge to the right to privacy under international law (ICCPR Article 17).

Rule of Law Analysis: Three Pillars Under Strain

From a rule-of-law perspective, the document highlights a systemic failure across three foundational pillars:

1. Legality and Certainty

Surveillance powers are currently governed by overbroad primary legislation and secondary instruments, allowing for arbitrary application. The statement notes that powers are often authorized through licensing conditions or executive discretion rather than primary, publicly debated legislation. This violates the principle of legal certainty, where citizens must be able to predict when and how the state can intrude upon their private lives.

2. Separation of Powers and Judicial Oversight

The lack of prior judicial authorization for surveillance measures is a glaring gap. The statement explicitly calls for a system where all surveillance is subject to a warrant issued by an independent and competent judicial authority, based on probable cause. Equally important is the absence of post-surveillance remedies—there is no mechanism for individuals to challenge the legality of a surveillance order, nor is there any suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence.

3. Accountability and Transparency

Perhaps the most poignant criticism is the non-publication of the high-powered committee’s report, which was submitted to Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on February 10, 2026. The government passed the amended telecommunications law before the committee could submit its recommendations, suggesting that its findings did not inform legislative changes. This undermines the principle of transparent governance.

Human Rights Implications: Privacy, Expression, and Due Process

Under international human rights law, any surveillance must meet the tripartite test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The statement argues that Bangladesh’s framework falls short on all three.

• Right to Privacy: The overbroad exemptions in the Personal Data Protection Act effectively create a blanket carve-out for state authorities. Without narrow, precisely defined exceptions, the right to privacy becomes illusory.
• Freedom of Expression and Assembly: The UN OHCHR report explicitly links surveillance to the repression of protests and the intimidation of journalists and activists. The statement warns that if surveillance capabilities continue to expand without safeguards, they will inevitably be used to suppress legitimate political dissent.
• Due Process and Fair Trial: Surveillance without judicial oversight denies individuals the right to challenge evidence used against them. The statement demands the suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence and sanctions against responsible officials, which are fundamental pillars of a fair trial.

Pathways to Reform: The Six Recommendations

The joint statement outlines a non-exhaustive list of six recommendations that are consistent with global best practices, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy guidelines and rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.

1. Establish an independent legislative reform commission to conduct a comprehensive review of all existing surveillance-enabling laws and publish its findings within a defined timeframe.
2. Enact a new, narrowly tailored legal framework that governs the full lifecycle of surveillance powers—from deployment to oversight—grounded in the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
3. Control the import of intrusive technologies through prior scrutiny, human rights due diligence, and public disclosure of vendors, preventing opaque procurement practices.
4. Establish effective judicial oversight requiring prior authorization by an independent judge for all surveillance, with narrow emergency exceptions and prompt ex-post review.
5. Create an independent parliamentary oversight committee with the power to summon officials and assess surveillance activities across both civilian and military agencies.
6. Narrowly draft exemptions under the Personal Data Protection Act, ensuring they are not blanket carve-outs and are subject to robust safeguards against abuse.