Bangladesh’s long-running controversy over presidential clemency has entered a new chapter following President Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir’s decision to waive disciplinary penalties imposed on 21 National Board of Revenue (NBR) officials, bringing renewed attention to the limits of presidential discretion and the constitutional reforms proposed to prevent political misuse.
The decision, announced through government notifications in September, came shortly after Fakhrul assumed office as Bangladesh’s 23rd president on August 21, 2026.
The officials had faced disciplinary action over their involvement in protests demanding reforms to the revenue administration in 2025.
Their appeals for clemency were accepted, leading to the withdrawal of the penalties.
Unlike several controversial presidential pardons granted in the past, the latest decision concerned administrative disciplinary action rather than criminal convictions.
Nevertheless, it raises a broader question: how should Bangladesh regulate the president’s authority to grant clemency, and what safeguards are necessary to ensure that mercy does not become a means of circumventing accountability?
The debate is particularly significant because political parties reached a consensus in July 2025 on the need to reform Article 49 of the Constitution, which governs the president’s power to pardon convicted individuals.
The proposed reforms sought to establish clear legal procedures, accountability mechanisms and consideration of victims’ families before pardons could be granted.
Fakhrul’s first clemency decision
On September 6, the Internal Resources Division of the Finance Ministry issued notifications confirming the withdrawal of disciplinary penalties against 21 NBR officials following their appeals for presidential clemency.
The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from protests in June 2025 against reforms introduced through the Revenue Policy and Revenue Management Ordinance.
During the protests, some officials reportedly tore up transfer orders, while others participated in demonstrations and work stoppages that disrupted revenue collection and administrative activities.
Following Fakhrul’s assumption of the presidency, the officials sought relief from their punishments. Their appeals were accepted, and the penalties were withdrawn.
However, it remains necessary to distinguish such relief from the constitutional power to pardon criminal sentences under Article 49.
The precise legal provision invoked in the NBR case has not been established from the available reporting.
What does Article 49 allow?
Article 49 of the Constitution gives Bangladesh’s president sweeping authority to grant pardons, reprieves and respites, and to remit, suspend or commute sentences imposed by courts, tribunals or other authorities.
The provision does not itself specify detailed eligibility criteria, a mandatory public explanation or a transparent procedure for deciding which convicted persons should receive mercy.
Presidential clemency is intended to provide a constitutional mechanism for mercy in exceptional circumstances.
It can be relevant in cases involving serious illness, humanitarian considerations, disproportionate punishment or other exceptional grounds.
But the same power has repeatedly attracted controversy when used to benefit individuals convicted of serious crimes, particularly those with political connections.
There is also a constitutional distinction between the president’s formal authority and the exercise of executive power.
When presidential pardons sparked controversy
Bangladesh’s history of presidential clemency includes several high-profile cases involving convicted murderers.
One of the most controversial was the murder of Jubo Dal leader Sabbir Ahmed Gama in Natore in 2004.
A Dhaka speedy trial tribunal sentenced 21 individuals to death in connection with the killing.
In September 2010, President Zillur Rahman granted clemency to 20 of the condemned prisoners, while another convict, who remained at large, did not receive the benefit.
The decision generated widespread criticism and questions about whether political considerations had influenced the exercise of presidential mercy.
Another case involved AHM Biplob, son of a former Awami League leader and Lakshmipur municipality mayor, who had been sentenced to death in the murder case of lawyer Nurul Islam.
Biplob received presidential clemency in 2011 during Zillur Rahman’s tenure.
The decision again triggered debate over the use of constitutional mercy in cases involving politically connected convicts.
In 2018, President Abdul Hamid granted clemency to Tofayel Ahmed Joseph, who had been convicted in a murder case. In another controversial instance, Haris Ahmed and Anis Ahmed, brothers of former army chief General Aziz Ahmed, received presidential pardons after being sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case.
These cases contributed to persistent concerns about consistency, transparency and political influence in clemency decisions.
What the parliamentary record reveals
The controversy is not confined to isolated cases.
According to information presented in parliament in March 2014, a total of 26 death-row convicts received presidential clemency during the previous five-year tenure of the Awami League-led Grand Alliance government.
The beneficiaries included individuals convicted in several widely discussed murder cases.
The disclosure prompted renewed questions about the grounds on which pardons were granted and the extent to which victims’ families were consulted.
The central issue was not simply whether the president possessed the constitutional power to grant mercy, but whether that power was being exercised through a sufficiently transparent and accountable process.
Political consensus on reform
The National Consensus Commission brought the issue back into focus during its discussions with political parties in July 2025.
Commission Vice-Chairman Professor Ali Riaz said political parties had acknowledged the widespread misuse of presidential clemency and agreed that Article 49 should be amended.
The proposed amendment would retain the president’s power to pardon while requiring its exercise to follow criteria, principles and procedures established by law.
The discussions also emphasised the importance of consulting victims’ families, particularly in cases involving serious crimes.
The objective was to prevent clemency from becoming an instrument of political favouritism while preserving its legitimate humanitarian purpose.
Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed, who participated in the reform discussions, also supported establishing legal safeguards and exploring an advisory mechanism to regulate presidential pardons.
The consensus marked a significant shift from earlier debates in which individual pardons generated controversy but broader institutional reform remained unresolved.
Can legal safeguards prevent political influence?
Constitutional expert and Supreme Court senior advocate Dr Shahdeen Malik told The New Nation that presidential clemency had been exercised relatively rarely since Bangladesh’s independence.
He said that many pardons had been granted on humanitarian grounds, including cases involving prisoners suffering from serious medical conditions.
However, he said that no constitutional power should be considered absolute.
He also noted that courts in Bangladesh and India had provided guidance concerning the exercise of presidential clemency.
Professor Dr Rabiul Islam, a constitutional expert at Jahangirnagar University, offered a broader perspective on the reform debate.
He argued that amending Article 49 alone would not be sufficient to ensure lasting constitutional accountability.
He said that deeper structural changes, including consideration of a semi-presidential system and federal arrangements, were necessary to strengthen democratic governance and transparency.