Legal and parliamentary reform is possible even after the general election, provided there is political consensus, said Asif Nazrul, law and expatriate welfare adviser to the interim government, in an interview with a national daily.
Speaking on the scope of reforms, Asif Nazrul noted, “Most of the actionable reform proposals will fall under the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs. We have compiled a list outlining the estimated duration for each reform, potential financial implications, and inter-ministerial involvement. Implementation has already begun on several fronts.”
He said the public could expect visible legal reforms within a month or two.
“Reforms involving constitutional amendments are inherently more complex. These require political consensus. Questions such as how much power the prime minister should retain, whether to establish bicameral legislature, expand the authority of parliamentary standing committees, or amend Article 70 of the Constitution—all demand cross-party agreement. We cannot and will not unilaterally push through such changes,” he stressed.
Asif Nazrul added that if parties including the BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, religious factions, the National Citizens’ Party (NCP), and leftist groups sign the proposed July Charter, then the method of reform implementation could be formally discussed.
“If we can agree collectively on reform, the process will not be difficult. In fact, some reforms could commence even before constitutional amendments—consensus being the only prerequisite,” he said.
On the interim government's stance regarding demands for an immediate parliamentary election, Nazrul stated, “Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus has set a timeline for elections, and I can assure you there will be no deviation. People must trust his word. However, it is also true that the election will not take place before December or after June 2026. The window is clear: between December and June.”
When asked whether the presence of student leaders in the interim administration compromises neutrality, Asif Nazrul defended their inclusion, saying, “It was only because of 15 years of relentless resistance by student bodies, supported by opposition parties like the BNP, that a public uprising became possible. The bravery and sacrifices they made are beyond comparison. They could have demanded to form a government as the victorious force of the uprising—but they didn’t. If they stand for election, they will resign from the interim government.”
On the issue of public vigilante justice, he acknowledged early leniency but stated the situation is improving.
“Revolutionary societies do not achieve discipline overnight. Even after our independence, we saw this. Over 50 individuals have been arrested for recent acts of vandalism. The government will take a firm stance on any future disorder.”
Addressing criticism of certain NCP leaders, Asif Nazrul remarked, “If forming a new party meant a complete reinvention, then why did honest parties like the CPB or BASAD never rise to prominence? We must temper our expectations with realism. I have advised the NCP to ensure financial transparency. They’ve already drafted a policy, and I will review it.”
On the eligibility of BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia and acting chair Tarique Rahman to contest elections, Nazrul commented, “Everyone knows how the cases against them were fabricated. Judges who convicted Khaleda were later rewarded with appointments in the High Court and Appellate Division. We're not offering them any undue favour—they’re winning their legal battles. Legally, nothing bars them from contesting.”
Regarding the possibility of banning the Awami League by executive order, Nazrul said, “A party can be banned through a court ruling, via the Election Commission, or through public interest litigation. I won't comment further at this stage; it is for the courts and the people to decide.”
On the Awami League’s participation in the next election, he clarified, “There’s no formal agenda yet regarding banning the party. Legal proceedings and public opinion will determine its future.”
Finally, asked whether India’s refusal to extradite Sheikh Hasina, if convicted by the International Crimes Tribunal, could affect bilateral ties, the adviser said, “If India refuses extradition despite a guilty verdict, it will certainly strain diplomatic relations between the two countries.”
