Dr. Yunus Declares Himself “Highly Important” Illegally

Outgoing Chief Adviser of the interim government, Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus, has controversially declared himself a “Highly Important Person” (HIP) for a period of one year following the handover of his official duties. This designation ensures that even after leaving office, Dr. Yunus remains under the stringent security of the Special Security Force (SSF).

The notification, signed by Md. Saifulla Panna, then Secretary of the Chief Adviser’s Office (now attached to the Ministry of Public Administration), was issued on 10 February but only came to public attention recently. According to the decree, the government invoked powers under the Special Security Force Act to grant Dr. Yunus this status, effectively extending extraordinary security privileges beyond his tenure.

Experts in constitutional and administrative law have criticised the move as a clear abuse of power and a violation of legal procedure. They point out that a law or ordinance cannot be enacted or amended to favour an individual retroactively. The HIP declaration, according to legal specialists, exemplifies personal gain at the expense of constitutional principles.

The original ordinance that Dr. Yunus amended secretly dates back to 29 October 2006 (SRO No. 285). It stipulated that the President, Prime Minister, and the Chief Adviser of a neutral caretaker government could be designated as HIPs only for a maximum of three months from the commencement of their respective terms. Opposition party leaders were also entitled to HIP status under the same timeframe. Dr. Yunus, however, extended this provision solely for himself, raising questions about both legality and ethics.

Key Details of the Ordinance and Dr. Yunus’ Action

Legal analysts argue that if Dr. Yunus had extended the HIP period equally for all officials listed in the 2006 ordinance, it might have been marginally defensible. By exclusively granting himself an extended term, he not only breached the original law but also acted unethically.

Further scrutiny reveals that Dr. Yunus leveraged his interim tenure for numerous personal advantages. Reports indicate that he withdrew corruption cases filed against him, obtained loan waivers for his institutions, secured licences in his name for universities and recruiting agencies, and continued to claim state benefits even in the final days of the caretaker government. Such acts have intensified public debate over his tenure, casting a shadow over his legacy and raising fundamental questions about accountability in transitional administrations.

In conclusion, the unilateral extension of “Highly Important Person” status by Dr. Yunus represents both a legal and ethical controversy, highlighting vulnerabilities in the governance mechanisms of caretaker administrations and underscoring the need for stricter oversight of discretionary powers.