Making National Human Rights Commission grow up

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is now 7 years old and the present Commission has completed its four-and-a-half year tenure with a tardy claim that it has no 'teeth but jaws'. Of course, this statement was made by the Chairman of the Commission and we do not know whether this statement comes from the Commission as a statutory institution.
Let us see from different sections of the NHRC Act and also from the activities of the Commission whether it has really teeth or not, whether it is institutionalising its role in protection and promotion of human rights or just playing its role as a passive whiner or whether the Commission is discharging its functions as per the law or not.
We will see to our utter dismay that the Commission has not taken any effective steps although the legislature has given it some important powers to exercise in the field of promotion and protection of human rights in the country. The NHRC Act is a replica of the Indian Act and if the Indian Commission takes an active role, what does our NHRC fail to take an effective role?
First, in the last 7 years, the Commission has not even framed any rule under the Act and the people do not know how the Commission takes complaints, makes decision, undertakes  investigation. The High Court Division issued a rule upon the NHRC two years ago to frame a rule but it did not frame it so far. The Commission has taken the plea that this is just a "Rule Nisi" and there is no mandatory obligation but this is unfortunate and unexpected from a statutory Commission.
The Commission has branded a remedy-seeker 'habitual offender' which is ridiculous; the Commission did not provide any relief to a rape victim on the ground that it is a pending case but after issuance of the Rule by the High Court Division, it did give relief to the victim. This proves that the Commission is not acting as per mandate of the law and its Chairman's statements are full of contradictions. The author of this article himself filed and moved both the writ petitions before the Supreme Court.
Second, under Section 19(2), the Commission has power to recommend for interim financial relief to the victim of human rights violations. But unfortunately the Commission did not exercise this power so far. This power of recommendation of providing interim relief could be developed to be more than teeth of the Commission. The provision of interim relief is the same as that of the NHRC in India but the Indian NHRC routinely recommends for interim financial relief and the statutory organs particularly the police department, the Home Ministry and the BSF comply with those.
In Bangladesh, the NHRC has not at all exercised this power and how can we say that the Commission does not have power? It has power but it is not exercising it. Had the Commission recommended interim relief to Limon or Kader who had to be amputated due to torture by the law enforcement agencies, the Dhaka Metropolitan Police would not have dared saying to its Chairman 'amra karor sathe bahase jorate chaina' (We don't like to be engaged in loose talks with anybody).
The Commission's Chairman has been given power and privileges of a sitting judge of the Appellate Division but as he is not institutionalising the Commission's role, the human rights violating bodies will get more and more upper hand over the Commission. The Commission should realise that its position is above the ministry. It has power to summon even the heads of armed and police forces, even secretaries of the ministries to act as per their recommendations failing which the Commission has power to seek direction from the High Court Division.  
Third, the Commission has the power for recommendation for taking departmental actions against violators to work as deterrent against future violations. Unfortunately the Commission has not in a single case exercised this power under Section 19 but it should have exercised this power, particularly in cases of Limon and Kader.
Fourth, dealing of the Chairman and the full-time member with human rights complaints are not open and rule-oriented. If we see the method of dealing with cases, it will become very clear that it does not summon violator before it does not take decision after any formal hearing as done by the Information Commission. As a result, the whole process of handling HR violation cases remains shady and questionable. It only issues letters to the violators or its authorities. The Commission's power to summon violators and its authorities has not been exercised. How can we say that the NHRC is powerless if it wilfully does not exercise its power and mandate given in the law? The Commission seeks quick disposal of cases but the question remains whether disposal is at all effective or not. The Commission does not display its decision in its web portal as done by the Information Commission. Lack of transparency is apparent in the activities of the Commission and its Chairman.
Fifth, the Act says that the Commission may delegate its powers to the Chairman or its member with conditions. No power can be given unconditionally but the way the Chairman and its full-time member are handling cases seems that they are exercising their powers unconditionally and with no openness and transparency. These activities of the Chairman and the full-time member can be challenged before the High Court Division.
Sixth, the Commission did not file any case so far under Article 102 of the Constitution to compel dilly-dallying violators to comply with prompt responses to the Commission's show-cause notices.
Seventh, the Commission's recent role in obtaining bail of one of the accused (who is a rich person) in the Sagor-Runi murder case and not including the name of a poor accused who has also been languishing in jail for 26 months, substantiates that the Commission is not acting on any rationale and rule-oriented principle. The Chairman's step for mediation and withdrawal of case of Limon against the RAB substantiates that the Commission is walking towards a wrong direction. The Commission wrongly issued notices to the Grameen Bank in favour of well-paid sacked officers who have their rights and remedies under the law. This substantiates that the Commission does not know which human rights violations are to be accepted and which are not. In fact, this has happened because the Commission has not framed its rule under the law and it is aimless and without any leadership with institution-building capacity. It has a Chairman who can give only speeches having no relevance to the institutionalisation of the NHRC as a statutory organ.
Eighth, Section 19(6) empowers the Commission to be a party in a pending case where there is violation of human rights violation. However, so far the Commission has not exercised this power. It is true that the Commission does not have a permanent panel of lawyers but it can work smoothly with cooperation of different NGO-lawyers who are working for promotion of human rights throughout the country. In fact, the Commission has not worked out any strategy on this vital point for protection of human rights.
There are a few others - mostly pre-investigations related - rules and procedures that the Commission must institutionalise for effective functioning, transparency, and accountability of its operations. These are:  
* Framing rules on receiving and dealing with complaints on human rights violations;
* Making rules on mediation under Section 15;
* Developing proper modus operandi on investigation and inquiry under Sections 16 and 17;
* Prioritizing various human rights vilations  with realistic classification in receiving complaints from the public;
* Distributing brochures for people's awareness about the Commission's activities with examples of the types and nature of human violations  being dealt with;  
* Establishing memorandum of understanding (MoU) with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) -- working for protection of human rights;   
* Devising directives or rules addressing all courts, tribunals and other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies that in all human rights-related issues, the Commission should have representations there; and
* Suo motu jurisdiction should be strengthened.  
We understand that the Commission is simply a human rights watchdog with the mandate to recommend for government actions. But that shouldn't handcuff its efforts doing whatever is warranted to institutionalise and streamline its modus operandi and strategy dictated by the statute.
The HR Commission nowhere in the world functions like a court with the power to convict the violators but its statuary mandates are powerful enough to help lead to successful convictions and safeguard the rights of the would- be victims. This can be achieved once the Commission grows up to justify its existence from a state of 'show and tell' institution to one of 'doing and done' - as the people wish to see.  

The writer is a Barrister of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and Chairman of the Children's Charity Bangladesh Foundation.
 [email protected]