Oxford Matrix | Public Interest Commentary
The following is a comment by Dr Rayhan Rashid of Oxford Matrix on the Government of Bangladesh’s reported response to Sheikh Hasina’s application for a new passport and National Identity Card.
On 9 November 2026, media reports said the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi had received an email from Matrix Chambers, London, asking for a new passport and National Identity Card for former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (Prothom Alo; Dhaka Tribune). The application reportedly referred to the revocation of her existing passport and NID. It asked for new documents to be issued “expeditiously”, on the basis of her Bangladeshi nationality and Bangladesh’s obligations under international human rights instruments. The High Commission forwarded it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Dhaka, which confirmed receiving it.
The same day, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Humaiun Kobir, dismissed it in remarks to journalists: “Anybody can write anything to the high commission. I can also write something to the high commission. It has no value.” He called its basis “very weak from a legal point of view, an ethical point of view and a moral point of view” (TOB News; Prothom Alo). Unnamed diplomatic sources also told the press the application could not be verified, because it did not include an authorisation signed by her.
Why we are commenting
Oxford Matrix has not been retained by, and does not act for, Sheikh Hasina or any other party in this matter. We comment in the public interest. A citizen’s right to return to her own country, and to the documents that make that possible, matters to every person in Bangladesh, whoever the citizen is. The government’s handling of this application raises questions of law and administrative practice that deserve informed public discussion.
10 points on the right to return and the government’s response
1. The Constitution guarantees the right to return. Article 36 of the Constitution of Bangladesh (1972) guarantees every citizen the right to leave and re-enter Bangladesh, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest.
2. International law protects this right even more strongly. Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) recognises everyone’s right to return to their own country. Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), to which Bangladesh is a party, provides that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” Unlike most rights of movement, this one is not subject to the general limitations on national security or public order.
3. The UN says denial is almost never reasonable. The UN Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 27 (1999), has said there are few, if any, circumstances in which depriving a person of the right to enter their own country could be reasonable.
4. A right to return means little without a passport. General Comment No. 27 (1999) recognises that issuing passports to nationals abroad is normally the duty of the state of nationality. It also cautions states against putting bureaucratic obstacles in the way of citizens obtaining travel documents.
5. Issuing passports is a consular duty, not a favour. Under Article 5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), issuing passports and travel documents to nationals is a core consular function. It is not to be granted or withheld according to political preference.
6. Bangladesh’s own courts agree. The High Court Division has held that a citizen’s right to a passport is a fundamental right, linked to freedom of movement, and that neither a pending criminal case nor a charge sheet is a valid ground for refusing or withholding one (Abdul Matin Sarker v Bangladesh). In Md Ruhul Kabir Rizvi v Government of Bangladesh (2017), it declared the authorities’ unreasonable delay in delivering a passport illegal.
7. The minister has cited no law. The State Minister has not identified any legal provision that makes the application “legally weak”. With respect, I know of none. “Ethical” and “moral” objections are not legal grounds for denying a citizen her travel documents.
8. The application was not made by just “anybody”. The application came from Matrix Chambers, a well known barristers’ chambers in London. Barristers in England and Wales are regulated by the Bar Standards Board, act on instructions, and owe professional duties of honesty and integrity. Writing to a foreign government on a person’s behalf without authority would be a serious professional breach, so it is highly unlikely the application was made without instructions.
9. A missing document is a reason to ask, not to refuse. If authorisation was a genuine concern, the professional response was to write back, acknowledge the application and ask for the document. As far as is publicly known, no such request has been made. Bangladesh’s courts have long recognised that procedure is the handmaid of justice, not its mistress.
10. This calls for legal advice, not the press podium. If the Ministry have real doubts about its obligations, the responsible course was to seek a legal opinion and reply formally. Publicly calling the application worthless before any formal response prejudges a decision the law requires to be taken fairly, on its merits and without arbitrariness.
3 things the Bangladesh government should now do
Whatever proceedings Sheikh Hasina faces, the lawful way to address them is through due process. Being returned in custody under an extradition arrangement is not the same as a citizen exercising her right to come home voluntarily. The state may not use the denial of a passport to achieve indirectly what it cannot lawfully do directly. The Bangladesh government should:
a) Respond formally to the application and identify in writing any document it reasonably requires.
b) Process the application on its merits, in accordance with Article 36 of the Constitution (1972) and Bangladesh’s obligations under the ICCPR (1966).
c) Refrain from prejudging the application through public statements.
The right to return to one’s own country is one of the most basic guarantees of citizenship. It does not depend on who the citizen is.
This commentary is a general legal analysis based on publicly reported information as of 9 November 2026. It does not constitute legal advice.
