Prominent law professor and legal expert Dr. Masum Billah has launched a fierce critique of the interim government’s newly promulgated July Indemnity Ordinance.
In an interview with the Bangla News Network’s Sultana Rahman, he described it as a deeply shameful, unconstitutional, and hypocritical measure that grants blanket protection to participants in the July uprising while betraying the very principles of human rights and rule of law championed by many in the current administration.
The ordinance, signed by the President as claimed by the Jamaat-controlled army-backed interim government, provides “protection” to those involved in the July events—framed by the government as a “people’s student revolution” against the previous regime. Dr. Billah, however, called it a blatant mechanism for impunity, shielding acts of violence, property destruction, and other offenses under the guise of political resistance.
A Law That Evokes Profound Shame And Historical Parallels
Dr. Billah expressed deep personal and professional embarrassment over the ordinance, stating: “As a student of law and as someone deeply immersed in legal reading, I feel extremely ashamed that we have had to witness such a law with our own eyes.”
Sajeeb Wazed condemns indemnity ordinance shielding July anarchists
Yunus approves controversial indemnity law for safeguard of July rioters
Under Yunus, law and order in Bangladesh at its worst in history
He drew direct parallels to Bangladesh’s dark history of indemnity laws, particularly the one that shielded the assassins of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: “From childhood we have heard about the Indemnity Ordinance… In the early 1990s, walls were plastered with slogans: ‘Repeal the Indemnity Ordinance, prosecute the killers of Bangabandhu.’ Whenever someone mentions indemnity, it immediately reminds me of the impunity granted in the Bangabandhu murder case.”
He characterised the current ordinance as the sick culmination of a long-standing culture of impunity: “Today’s indemnity is yet another manifestation of that same culture of impunity—the unhealthy culmination of the decaying legal tradition of granting exemption from liability.”
Hypocrisy Among Self-Proclaimed Human Rights Defenders
Dr. Billah reserved particular scorn for the irony of human rights advocates occupying key positions in the interim government while endorsing an anti-rights law. He named several figures, including Law Adviser Professor Asif Nazrul, environmental rights activist Syeda Rizwana Hasan of the so-called “Odhikar” organization, former Deputy Attorney General Adilur Rahman Khan Shubhra, feminist leader Farida Akhter, and Sharmin Murshid (daughter of Rabindra Sangeet exponent Khan Sarwar Murshid).
Sheikh Hasina accuses Yunus of engineering killings
July Charter: Sheikh Hasina condemns indemnity for ‘killings by July heroes’
GCDG report recalls police killings, release of militants in July-August 2024
“This government is predominantly manned and womanned by so-called human rights faces, but they effectively defend the culture of human rights violations… This is a government that has effectively become a defender of the culture of human rights violations.”
He highlighted the betrayal by legal academics and rights defenders: “Professor Asif Nazrul is a law professor… These doctorate holders and professors have, with their own hands, given birth to a human rights-violating law.”
Dr. Billah also expressed personal anguish by saying: “Sometimes I feel like cursing myself. Because in a couple of days, this very gentleman will go and teach constitutional law… These same people will argue human rights, go to Geneva, talk about ICCPR, talk about the CAT Convention… They will speak about fundamental human rights. And these are our country’s law professors who will teach this to students, and students will read it, and courts will see it.”
Deceptive Drafting And Legal Flaws Laid Bare
Dr. Billah dissected the ordinance’s language, calling it a classic example of “colourable legislation” or “chameleon law” designed to deceive the public and courts: “This is a colourable law… Fraud in every line.”
He criticised the deliberate avoidance of the term “indemnity,” opting instead for “protection”: “They didn’t write the word ‘indemnity.’ They wrote ‘protection.’ ‘Protection of the July Participants.’ July month revolution (in brackets). ‘Protection and Determination of Liability.'”
The broad term “participant” allows anyone to self-identify and claim immunity: “‘July Participant’ means any student or non-student or ordinary person… Any person can claim to be a July participant and secure exemption from liability.”
He mocked the high-flown English in the draft: “The draft is written in high-level English so that ordinary people cannot read it… Professor Asif Nazrul doesn’t even know that ordinances are not ‘enacted’—statutes passed by Parliament are enacted; ordinances are promulgated or issued.”
Dr. Billah accused the government of misusing Article 46 of the Constitution as a fraudulent justification: “They have cited Article 46 of the Constitution, which they themselves do not respect… This is yet another fraudulent interpretation.”
He argued the ordinance violates core fundamental rights under Articles 26, 27, and 31: “Article 26(2) states that no law can be made contrary to fundamental human rights… If any such law is made, it shall be unconstitutional and void to the extent of inconsistency… Article 27 says every person is equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law.”
He labelled it a “Henry VIII clause”—unfettered executive power: “This is a blatant example of a Henry VIII clause… Unfettered power.”
On the self-defense claim: “The July participants allegedly acted in self-defense and to protect law and order in Bangladesh… But isn’t the responsibility to maintain law and order that of the law enforcement agencies?”
Predictions Of Inevitable Invalidation
Dr. Billah predicted the ordinance would be struck down: “When the appropriate environment is created, any aggrieved citizen, any rights-conscious person, any victim-side advocate will challenge it in court… It will not pass any constitutional standard and will be considered unconstitutional from the very beginning.”
He cited precedent: the 2003 Operation Clean Heart indemnity ordinance was declared invalid by the High Court.
On the timing—just before the February 12 election: “They issued it hurriedly before the election… They do not want to leave power without protection under any circumstances.”
He warned of a grim future regardless of election outcomes: “Unfortunately, it will return in a new form… Rulers change, but the pattern of exploitation remains the same.”
Dr. Billah highlighted the collapse of the criminal justice system, including prolonged bail denials and silent killings in jails: “Statistics from the past year show that prisons have become unsafe zones for killings… Torture, beaten to death… Handcuffs violate inherent human dignity, yet they are not honoured.”
On the recent bail granted to Saddam from Bagerhat: “This case of Saddam could be a breakthrough… But unless there is such a big inhuman incident in other cases, the state does not come to its senses.”
A Stark Warning
Dr. Billah concluded with a damning assessment: “Layer upon layer, this government is engaged in deception and throwing dust in the eyes of the people… They have committed fraud on the conscience of the people in every bit of their action—and this law is full of deception line by line.”
He described the ordinance as a desperate self-preservation mechanism: “This is a mechanism for face-saving, self-protection… Like making a will before death: ‘At least we gave you protection.'”
As Bangladesh heads toward its February 12 polls, Dr. Billah’s analysis paints a troubling picture of deepening legal erosion, institutional hypocrisy, and persistent impunity—raising urgent questions about the future of constitutional governance and human rights under the current interim regime.
English 
Bengali