Bar association elections in Bangladesh have always been politically contested and deeply competitive. But recent reports suggest a more alarming development: not merely political rivalry, but the alleged exclusion of lawyers from participating altogether. From the Supreme Court Bar Association to several district bar associations, including Dhaka and Chittagong, concerns have emerged that lawyers holding different political views or perceived opposition affiliations were unable to contest elections freely.
These allegations have drawn international attention. The Law Society of England and Wales has reportedly written formally to Tarique Rahman expressing concern over the situation. As questions grow over political exclusion within legal institutions, the issue is no longer only a domestic controversy. Increasingly, the international legal community is watching closely.
What the Record Actually Shows: Opposition Victories Under Awami League Rule
One of the more telling indicators of democratic resilience within Bangladesh’s legal community is the track record of bar association elections during the Awami League’s tenure. Despite widespread allegations that the government sought to extend political control over public institutions, opposition-backed lawyers, particularly those aligned with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, continued to win significant leadership positions across bar associations at both the national and district levels.
The Supreme Court Bar Association, arguably the most prestigious legal body in the country, offers the clearest evidence of this.
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION — ELECTION RECORD
The documented election record of the Supreme Court Bar Association presents a reality that cannot easily be ignored. In 2017–18, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) backed candidates Zainul Abedin and AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon won the posts of President and Secretary, while the opposition panel secured 8 of 14 positions. In 2019, opposition-backed candidates again obtained a majority on the executive committee. In 2021, BNP-backed Ruhul Quddus Kazal was elected Secretary alongside several BNP-aligned candidates in other positions. In 2024–25, AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon was elected President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Similar opposition victories were also recorded in many district bar associations across the country.
Public statements by senior lawyers claiming that legal professionals could not vote during the previous government’s tenure must therefore be examined in light of these documented records. The repeated success of opposition-backed candidates suggests that bar association elections in Bangladesh remained contested and competitive spaces, despite allegations of political pressure and institutional imbalance. Political disagreement is natural in a democracy, but public discourse must remain grounded in verifiable facts rather than selective narratives.
A New and Deeply Worrying Turn: Exclusion Under the Current Dispensation
The concern today, however, is of a different and more urgent character. The Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association election has been held. BNP, Jamaat, and their allied lawyers were the only ones who contested. Lawyers perceived to be supportive of the Bangladesh Awami League, or simply holding different political views, did not participate. They were not merely absent out of choice. They reportedly faced serious obstacles to participating in elections or carrying out normal professional activities.
The same pattern has appeared across district bar associations. In Dhaka, Chittagong, Gazipur, and Rajshahi, only BNP and Jamaat-oriented lawyers contested recent elections. The breadth of this across so many geographically distinct associations make it impossible to treat as coincidence or as the product of individual local disputes.
DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATIONS — REPORTED CONCERNS, 2025–26
Reported developments surrounding several bar association elections during 2025–26 raise serious concerns about political exclusion within segments of Bangladesh’s legal community. According to these reports, participation in elections at the Supreme Court Bar Association, Dhaka Bar Association, Chittagong Bar Association, Gazipur Bar Association, and Rajshahi Bar Association was allegedly dominated by BNP, Jamaat, and allied groups, while lawyers perceived to be affiliated with the Awami League or holding independent positions reportedly faced exclusion, intimidation, or procedural obstruction.
If accurate, these reported incidents represent a troubling shift away from the competitive electoral culture that previously existed within many bar associations in Bangladesh. Earlier election cycles showed that opposition-backed candidates were repeatedly able to win important positions, even during periods of intense political tension. The reported restrictions of 2025–26 therefore raise serious concerns about political retaliation and shrinking democratic space within professional legal institutions.
A lawyer’s right to vote, contest elections, and participate in bar associations should never depend on political affiliation. Once exclusion becomes normalized against one group, democratic norms and institutional fairness become vulnerable for everyone.
The growing politicization of bar associations also risks weakening public confidence in the justice system. Courts depend on lawyers who are independent, professional, and trusted by society. When legal institutions become divided along partisan lines, both professional integrity and judicial credibility suffer, particularly for younger lawyers entering the profession. Preserving the rule of law requires bar associations to remain open, competitive, and professionally inclusive institutions.
INTERNATIONAL ALERT
The Law Society of England and Wales, representing more than 200,000 solicitors, has raised serious concerns over alleged intimidation, obstruction, and political interference in different Bar Association elections in Bangladesh. In a formal letter addressed to Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, the organization called for high-level government intervention to safeguard the independence, security, and professional autonomy of the country’s legal profession. A free and independent legal profession, the letter makes clear, is not a professional luxury. It is a structural requirement of democracy itself.
A Profession at the Heart of Democracy
The legal profession is one of the foundational pillars of any democratic society. Lawyers are expected to defend constitutional values, uphold the rule of law, and protect justice without fear or political discrimination. Bar associations are not merely professional bodies. They are democratic institutions that reflect the health of a nation’s legal culture. When elections within bar associations become exclusionary or politically discriminatory, the damage goes beyond the legal community. It weakens public confidence in democracy itself.
That this concern has now been formally raised by the Law Society of England and Wales, one of the oldest and most respected legal bodies in the world, is not a minor development. It is an international signal that the situation within Bangladesh’s bar associations has reached a point where it cannot be treated as an internal matter alone.
“Bar associations are not merely professional bodies. They are democratic institutions that reflect the health of a nation’s legal culture.”
Transparency and Accountability Cannot Be Optional
Transparency is fundamental to good governance and institutional credibility. Allegations of intimidation, voter obstruction, biased election management, or politically motivated exclusion should be independently investigated and openly addressed. Bar associations should maintain transparent election records, clear voting procedures, and credible dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure public confidence.
When transparency is absent, rumors and political propaganda often replace facts, deepening division and weakening trust in the justice system. Accountability also loses meaning when it is applied selectively. Democratic principles must apply equally to all political groups, regardless of who holds power.
Lawyers and bar leaders carry significant public responsibility. Their statements shape public opinion and institutional legitimacy. For that reason, accuracy, fairness, and honesty are not merely professional expectations; they are ethical obligations.
The Path Forward: Democratic Culture Must Be Rebuilt From Within
The solution is not revenge, exclusion, or counter-exclusion. The solution lies in rebuilding democratic culture within professional institutions. Bar associations across Bangladesh, from the Supreme Court Bar to every district association, should guarantee equal participation rights for all lawyers regardless of political ideology. Election procedures should be transparent and independently monitored. Violence, intimidation, and political targeting must be unequivocally condemned, from every side.
Senior lawyers should promote dialogue instead of polarization. Younger lawyers should be encouraged to value professionalism over blind political allegiance. Most importantly, institutional rules should be stronger than partisan interests.
Democracy survives through habits of tolerance, not merely through constitutions and slogans.
JUSTICE MUST NOT BECOME PARTISAN
The debate surrounding bar association elections is ultimately a debate about the future of democratic values in Bangladesh. A society cannot credibly claim commitment to democracy while excluding professionals from participation because of political identity.
The Law Society of England and Wales has raised this concern formally with the Prime Minister. The district bars of Dhaka, Chittagong, Gazipur, and Rajshahi have all seen versions of the same problem simultaneously. This is no longer a matter for individual bar committees to quietly manage.
Lawyers should stand at the forefront of defending fairness, transparency, accountability, and constitutional rights. They should not contribute to division, misinformation, or institutional exclusion.
Bangladesh needs stronger democratic institutions, not deeper political hostility. The legal profession has both the responsibility and the opportunity to lead by example.
Justice must never become partisan. Democracy must never become selective. And professional institutions must never forget that their legitimacy depends on fairness for all.
Writer: Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
