Even after resigning, both sides are staying in the residence.

More than a week after formally resigning from Bangladesh’s interim government, two former student advisers remain in their state-provided residences, sparking growing public curiosity and political debate over accountability, privilege, and the absence of clear regulations.

The advisers in question—Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan and Mahfuj Alam—submitted their resignations to Chief Adviser Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus on 10 December at the state guest house Jamuna. Their departures were linked to the announcement of the national election schedule, after which their resignations officially took effect. Despite this, both men continue to occupy government housing, with no confirmed timeline for vacating the properties.

Officials at the Ministry of Housing and Public Works admit that they have no specific information regarding when the residences will be vacated. Sources within the ministry suggest that, as of Wednesday, neither adviser had formally contacted the relevant authorities regarding relocation. Attempts by officials to reach them reportedly went unanswered.

The lack of clarity has been compounded by silence from the former advisers themselves. Repeated attempts by journalists to contact Asif Mahmud and Mahfuj Alam by telephone were unsuccessful, and text messages identifying reporters received no response.

At the heart of the issue lies a policy gap. Current government housing regulations do not explicitly state how long ministers, advisers, or public representatives may remain in official residences after resigning. While election conduct rules prohibit candidates from using state facilities during campaigns, there is no equivalent provision covering the immediate post-resignation period for advisers.

In contrast, rules governing government employees are far more explicit. Retired officials are typically allowed to remain in government housing for up to two months, with an additional four months granted if their children are still enrolled in educational institutions. No such timelines apply to political appointees.

This regulatory vacuum has prompted criticism from civil society observers, who argue that continued occupancy of state housing after resignation undermines public trust—particularly at a time when the interim government has pledged transparency and reform.

Asif Mahmud, a prominent figure in the July mass uprising, played a significant role in the student-led movement that ultimately hastened the fall of the Awami League government. His announcement of the “March to Dhaka” programme in early August 2024 proved pivotal. Recognising his influence, the interim administration appointed him on the very day it was formed, entrusting him initially with the labour, youth, and sports portfolios before later assigning him responsibility for local government.

Mahfuj Alam, meanwhile, emerged as a key strategist behind the student movement. Initially appointed as a special assistant, he was later elevated to adviser status and eventually given responsibility for information affairs. His international profile rose sharply when Professor Yunus introduced him at the United Nations as one of the masterminds of the student uprising.

Together, the two served for over a year—Asif Mahmud for 15 months and Mahfuj Alam for 13. Their continued residence in government housing now stands in stark contrast to the reformist ideals that brought them to prominence.

As public scrutiny intensifies, the issue has become symbolic of a broader challenge facing the interim administration: aligning political conduct with the promises of accountability that inspired a nation during a time of upheaval.