Weekly Bangla Mirror | Bangla Mirror, Bangladeshi news in UK, bangla mirror news
Advocate Shafiqul Haque:
Bangladesh is again having a public discussion about citizenship and eligibility for public office. Recent questions concerning Foreign Minister Dr Khalilur Rahman and State Minister for Foreign Affairs Humayun Kabir have brought the issue into renewed focus.
This should not become a debate about personalities. The facts and the law should determine any individual case. But the wider issue deserves serious attention because Bangladesh still needs clearer and more modern rules about citizenship and public service.
The fundamental question is simple: Who should be allowed to serve Bangladesh, and under what conditions?
This matters because millions of Bangladeshis now live, work and build their careers around the world. Many have acquired citizenship elsewhere. Others have spent decades gaining professional experience in foreign governments, public institutions, businesses and democratic systems.
Bangladesh should protect its national interests, but it should also recognise the knowledge and experience of its global citizens.
The answer should be a clear legal framework rather than uncertainty, political argument or case-by-case controversy.
Beyond Citizenship
There is an important difference between citizenship and eligibility for a particular public office.
A person may hold Bangladeshi citizenship and another nationality, but that does not necessarily mean every public position should have exactly the same eligibility requirements.
A local councillor, a mayor, a Member of Parliament and a minister responsible for national security do very different jobs. Their responsibilities are not identical, so it is reasonable for the law to apply different standards.
The question should therefore not simply be: “Does this person have another passport?”
We should also ask: Does the person meet the legal requirements for the office? Are relevant interests properly declared? Is there a genuine conflict of interest? Does the person have obligations to another state that could affect the responsibilities of the position?
These questions can be answered through clear legislation.
One Country, Different Offices
One weakness in the present debate is the tendency to treat every public office as if it carries the same level of responsibility. It does not. A local councillor or mayor has very different responsibilities from a Member of Parliament or a minister responsible for defence, intelligence or national security. For that reason, different public offices can reasonably have different legal requirements.
This is particularly important when we consider local government. The Election Commission has proposed amendments that would disqualify dual citizens from contesting elections across the five tiers of local government: union parishads, municipalities, upazila parishads, city corporations and zila parishads. This proposal deserves careful public discussion before any final decision is made.
If a Bangladeshi citizen is otherwise qualified to stand for local election, I believe holding another nationality should not, by itself, prevent that person from becoming a councillor or mayor. Local representatives serve their communities directly and should be judged by their eligibility, conduct, accountability and commitment to the people they represent.
My own experience gives me a practical perspective on this. I served as a local councillor in London for many years and also had the honour of serving as Mayor. I saw first-hand how people from different backgrounds can participate in local democracy, represent their communities and make a positive contribution to public life.
Bangladesh can introduce reasonable safeguards, including disclosure of citizenship and relevant interests, without unnecessarily closing the door to citizens who have gained valuable international experience and are willing to use that experience for the benefit of their communities and country.
Dual citizenship should not, by itself, prevent a Bangladeshi citizen from standing in local government elections.
Parliament and National Politics
Parliamentary office carries greater national responsibility, and Bangladesh may reasonably apply stricter requirements.
Article 66 of the Constitution sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for election to Parliament. It provides that a person must be a Bangladeshi citizen and at least 25 years old, while Article 66(2)(c) addresses acquiring the citizenship of, or affirming or acknowledging allegiance to, a foreign state. Article 66(2A) also deals with circumstances involving a Bangladeshi citizen by birth who acquires foreign citizenship and subsequently gives up that citizenship.
These provisions show that the issue is already recognised by the Constitution. The problem is that questions can still arise over interpretation, timing, evidence and eligibility.
That uncertainty is not good for candidates, political parties, voters or the Election Commission.
Bangladesh should establish clear procedures so that eligibility is determined before an election, rather than becoming the subject of controversy afterwards.
Candidates should know the rules before nomination. Political parties should check eligibility before selecting candidates. The Election Commission should have a clear process for verification.
The Highest and Most Sensitive Offices
The same principle should apply to the highest and most sensitive offices.
Bangladesh may reasonably decide that certain positions require the strongest safeguards concerning citizenship and allegiance. Parliament can determine which offices fall into that category and what requirements should apply.
This could include the President, Prime Minister, Defence and certain national-security responsibilities.
I am not arguing that every dual citizen should automatically be entitled to hold every public office.
That would be too broad.
My argument is for proportionate rules.
A local councillor should not necessarily be treated in exactly the same way as a national-security minister. The responsibilities are different, and the law should recognise that difference.
Clear distinctions would protect Bangladesh while also allowing valuable citizens to contribute.
What Does the Constitution Say?
Article 66 is central to the present discussion because it establishes the qualifications and disqualifications relating to membership of Parliament.
The Constitution provides that a person must be a Bangladeshi citizen and at least 25 years old to be qualified for election to Parliament. It also contains provisions concerning foreign citizenship and allegiance to another state.
These provisions are important. But the present debate demonstrates that constitutional provisions alone are not enough if their practical application remains uncertain.
Questions can arise over whether foreign citizenship has actually been relinquished, when relinquishment became legally effective and what documentary evidence is required.
These are not minor technical matters. They can determine whether somebody is eligible to contest an election or hold public office.
That is why Bangladesh needs a system in which eligibility can be determined clearly and transparently before an election or appointment.
The Present Controversy Should Lead to Clarity
The current questions surrounding Dr Khalilur Rahman and Humayun Kabir should therefore be dealt with on the basis of facts and law.
If the relevant constitutional requirements are satisfied, the matter should be settled.
If there is a legal difficulty, the law should be applied.
But once the immediate issue is dealt with, Parliament should look at the wider question.
Otherwise, the same controversy may return during every election or whenever a person with an international background enters public life.
Bangladesh should not depend on political arguments to determine fundamental questions of eligibility.
It needs a clear framework that everyone can understand in advance.
A Lesson from British Local Government
Britain offers useful examples, although Bangladesh should not simply copy the British system.
British public life has long included people from different ethnic, cultural and international backgrounds. People of South Asian, African, Caribbean and other origins have served as councillors, mayors, Members of Parliament and ministers.
The important lesson is not that Britain has no restrictions. It is that a person’s international background does not automatically prevent them from participating in democratic life.
My own experience in London local government is one example. People from different backgrounds worked together through the same democratic system and were judged by their performance and accountability to their constituents.
Bangladesh can take a similar principle while creating safeguards appropriate to its own constitutional circumstances.
International experience can be a strength rather than a weakness.
Rishi Sunak and Political Participation
Rishi Sunak’s career is another useful example of how a person from an immigrant family background can reach the highest level of political office.
He became Britain’s first British Asian Prime Minister. His career demonstrated that family origin and international heritage do not necessarily prevent a person from taking on major national responsibilities.
The point is not to suggest that Bangladesh should copy Britain’s constitutional arrangements.
The point is that modern democracies can benefit from people whose experiences and backgrounds cross national boundaries.
Bangladesh has a large global community with similar potential.
International Experience Can Also Serve Bangladesh
Anwar Choudhury provides another relevant example.
A British diplomat of Bangladeshi origin, he served as British High Commissioner to Bangladesh and subsequently held senior diplomatic positions representing the United Kingdom.
His career demonstrates that international connections can sometimes strengthen relations between countries rather than weaken them.
A person with knowledge of Bangladesh and experience of another country’s institutions can potentially become a bridge between societies.
Bangladesh should recognise that value.
Mark Carney and International Public Service
Mark Carney provides a different but equally interesting example.
Carney is Canadian and is now Canada’s Prime Minister. He previously served as Governor of the Bank of Canada and later became Governor of the Bank of England. He returned to Canadian public life and became Prime Minister in 2025.
This is not an argument that Canada has the same citizenship rules as Bangladesh, nor is it evidence that dual citizenship should automatically be permitted for every public office.
It illustrates something broader: international professional experience can become a national asset.
A person can gain knowledge and experience in another country’s institutions and later use that experience in the service of their own country.
Bangladesh has millions of citizens who have acquired similar experience across the world.
Why should the country not benefit from it?
Loyalty Should Be Judged by Conduct
There is also a deeper question about loyalty.
Citizenship matters. National allegiance matters. But loyalty should not be judged simply by counting passports.
A passport is a legal document. Conduct tells us much more about a person’s commitment.
Anyone seeking public office should be required to uphold the Constitution, obey Bangladeshi law, declare relevant interests and put the national interest first.
Where there is a genuine conflict with another country, the law should address it.
Where there is no conflict, the existence of another nationality should not automatically be treated as proof of disloyalty.
Transparency is therefore essential.
Candidates and public officials should disclose relevant citizenships, interests and obligations. The public should be able to judge whether there is any real conflict.
That is a much more sensible approach than treating every dual citizen as a potential problem.
A Modern Bangladesh Needs Modern Rules
Bangladesh has changed enormously since the Constitution was adopted in 1972.
Millions of Bangladeshis now live abroad. They study overseas, build businesses, work in professional occupations, serve in public institutions and raise families across different countries.
Many remain deeply connected to Bangladesh.
They send money home, invest in the country, support their families, maintain community links and contribute to Bangladesh in many different ways.
Some also want to contribute through public service.
The Constitution and laws should recognise this modern reality while protecting national sovereignty.
This is not about weakening Bangladesh.
It is about creating a system that is strong enough to protect national interests while flexible enough to use the skills of Bangladeshis around the world.
A Possible Constitutional Amendment
Parliament should consider a constitutional amendment and supporting legislation to establish a clear framework.
The first principle should be local democratic participation.
A Bangladeshi citizen who holds another nationality should not automatically be excluded from local government elections solely because of that second nationality, provided the person meets other legal requirements and makes the necessary declarations.
The second principle should concern national political office.
For parliamentary candidates, the law should clearly establish the rules concerning foreign citizenship, allegiance, disclosure and relinquishment where required. The evidence needed to establish eligibility should also be clearly defined.
The third principle should concern sensitive constitutional and national-security positions.
Where exclusive national allegiance is considered essential, the Constitution or relevant legislation should clearly identify those offices and establish the appropriate requirements.
This would create a system that is open but responsible.
It would also remove the tendency to treat every public position as though it carries exactly the same constitutional risk.
A National Consensus Is Needed
This should not become a matter for one political party or one government alone.
The Prime Minister and the Government should engage with the Opposition, political parties, constitutional experts, the Election Commission and other relevant stakeholders to build a broad consensus on these reforms.
Citizenship and eligibility for public office are fundamental constitutional questions. They should not change with every change of government.
Parliament should therefore work together, where possible, to establish rules that can command public confidence and remain effective for future generations.
A consensus-based approach would send an important message: protecting Bangladesh’s national interests and allowing its citizens to contribute to public life are shared national responsibilities, not partisan issues.
The Election Commission Also Needs Certainty
Clear rules would also help the Election Commission.
The Commission should not have to face difficult questions about citizenship eligibility during an election without an agreed legal framework.
Candidates need certainty.
Political parties need certainty.
Voters need certainty.
The courts should not repeatedly have to settle basic questions after elections have taken place.
The principle should be simple:
Eligibility should be established before the ballot, not argued after it.
That would strengthen confidence in the electoral system and reduce unnecessary political controversy.
From Uncertainty to Reform
Bangladesh should approach this issue calmly.
There are genuine constitutional, national-security and allegiance concerns. They should not be dismissed.
But there is also a national interest in making use of the knowledge and experience of Bangladeshis who have lived and worked abroad.
These two objectives can exist together.
Bangladesh can protect national security while welcoming international experience.
It can require transparency without creating unnecessary exclusion.
It can have strict rules for sensitive national offices while allowing wider participation in local democracy.
Most importantly, it can achieve this through clear constitutional provisions rather than repeated political disputes.
The Right to Serve Bangladesh
The debate ultimately comes down to a simple question:
If a Bangladeshi citizen has knowledge, experience, integrity and a genuine desire to serve the country, should the law make it unnecessarily difficult for that person to contribute?
My answer is no.
That does not mean every dual citizen should automatically be entitled to every public office. Public service carries serious responsibilities, and appropriate constitutional safeguards must remain.
But Bangladesh should distinguish between exclusion and protection.
The country does not need to choose between national sovereignty and global citizenship. It can have both.
Millions of Bangladeshis live around the world, but their connection with the motherland remains strong. Many have acquired skills and experience that could benefit Bangladesh in government, business, local administration, education, diplomacy and public service.
We should not see that global connection as a threat.
We should see it as an opportunity.
Global Citizens, National Service
The present controversy should become a reason to improve the system rather than another temporary political argument.
Parliament now has an opportunity to create clear, fair and modern rules for citizenship and public service. Local government, Parliament and the most sensitive constitutional offices can each have appropriate requirements.
What matters is that those requirements are transparent, proportionate and known before someone seeks office.
Bangladesh should not judge a citizen simply by the number of passports they hold. It should judge whether they are legally eligible, whether they are transparent about their interests, whether they can meet the responsibilities of the office and whether they are prepared to put Bangladesh’s national interest first.
The question is not whether a Bangladeshi has lived abroad. The question is what that Bangladeshi can contribute to Bangladesh.
If Parliament can answer that question with courage and constitutional wisdom, the present controversy can become the beginning of a better approach to citizenship and public service.
Bangladesh can protect its sovereignty while opening the door to its global citizens. It can demand loyalty and transparency without unnecessary exclusion. And it can create a system in which the right people, under clear and fair rules, are able to serve the country they continue to call home. That is not a threat to Bangladesh. It is an opportunity for Bangladesh — and one worth embracing.
Advocate Shafiqul Haque
Political Analyst, Writer and Author
