From Paper to Practice: Can the Law Stop Animal Cries and Whimpers in Bangladesh?

Newspaper reports on 2 December in Bangladesh stated that, approximately a week ago a stray mother dog gave birth to eight puppies in the courtyard of the government residence of Hasnur Rahman Nayon, the Ishwardi upazila officer of the Small Farmers Development Foundation and had been sheltering there with her newborns.

Later, the puppies suddenly disappeared. On the morning of December 1, the mother dog was seen running around the parishad premises, whimpering loudly looking for the newborn puppies. It was eventually discovered that the puppies had been thrown into a pond and killed. Later, the dead puppies recovered from the pond and buried. The incident has stirred the minds of all conscientious citizens across the country and abroad.

Subsequently, on December 2, the Ishwardi Upazila Livestock Officer filed a case under under Section 7 of the Animal Welfare Act, 2019  (although a few newspaper reports mentioned quoting Ishwardi Police Station Officer-in-Charge ASM Abdun Noor that the case was filed under section 429 of the Penal Code of 1860) at the local police station when the advisor of the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock ordered her to take necessary action. As a result, the wife of the Upazila Small Farmers Foundation official was arrested the next day while the Senior Judicial Magistrate Court-1 ordered to send her to jail. Later, on 4 December, volunteer organisation Ishwardiyan’s director and an animal lover Shahriar Amit brought two puppies from his own dog and gave them to the grieving mother.

Now the question is why cruelty to animals is not decreasing despite the existence of an enactment titled the Animal Welfare Act passed in the parliament in 2019. If we look at history, it is seen that before the 2019 law, a century old law called ‘the Cruelty to Animals Act’ of 1920 was in force in this land; which was amended to prevent cruelty to animals, show kind treatment and ensure animal welfare through responsible husbandry, which is also mentioned in the preamble of the new law. Although the 2019 law is progressive compared to the former 1920 law; there are several significant loopholes in this law. And therefore, this newly enacted law is also unable to ensure prevention of cruelty to animals, show kind treatment, responsible husbandry and protection of all animals in the country.

A vital limitation of the 2019’s Act is that no court can take cognizance of any offence committed under this Act without a written complaint from the authority under section 18. Hence, there is no scope for any citizen or aggrieved person to file a case or seek redress under this Act. According to the Act, the authority means the Director General of the Department of Livestock or any veterinary surgeon of the said Department authorized by him (Section 2(4)). Therefore, no one can directly file a case under this Act to seek redress; at most, can file a GD with the police station concerned. Instead of filing a case, any person who wants to take legal action has to approach the Department of Livestock and in these cases, unnecessary time is wasted, and various harassments are seen due to countless bureaucratic complications culture in the country. Unless there is a stir on social media or there is video of occurrence or no responsible person takes initiative, usually no action is taken in these cruel cases.

Thus, the real purpose of animal welfare is limited to the statute, not seen in reality in Bangladesh. And that is why in most cases, citizens are forced to file cases under the Penal Code, 1860 by passing the Animal Welfare Act. Section 429 of the Penal Code provides that if anyone kills or harms an animal and if the value of any animal is 50 taka or upwards, that person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.

On the contrary, the Animal Welfare Act prescribes punishment depending on the nature and extent of the crime including someone accomplices in the commission of the crime, which may enlarged to 2 (two) years of simple imprisonment or with a fine which may extend to 50 (fifty) thousand taka or with both. The crime committed under this Act is non-cognizable and bailable. Though, the offence committed under section 429 of the Penal Code is cognizable, meaning that the police can arrest the accused without a warrant, but the offence is also a bailable offence. Therefore, it is not clear why the accused was sent to jail without bail.

However, the complication of filing a case for cruelty against animals under the Penal Code is that if the animal is not owned by anyone, then determining the monetary value stated in the Code is not possible. In that case, it becomes difficult to prove such a case before the court. As a result, many of these cases do not progress to trial, rather settled between parties or dismissed for lack of evidence. Nonetheless, the Animal Welfare Act makes killing both owned and unowned animals a crime. Moreover, no stray animal can be killed, culled, removed, relocated without the reasons mentioned in the Act.

Cruel, violent and inhumane treatment of animals is not a new phenomenon in the context of Bangladesh although there are excepts but the numbers are insignificant. It is true that people's interest and awareness towards animal welfare have increased compared to before, it has not yet reached the desired level. Due to which there are often reports of animals being killed by groups or individuals. In some cases, even local authorities lead these killings. Though in 2020, the country's highest court ruled a ban on dog culling after filing a writ petition by a private animal welfare organization. As a result, the Dhaka City Corporation forced to stop dog culling and promised to implement a neutering and vaccination programme for neighbourhood dogs. However, vaccination programs have not spread throughout the country, resulting in a kind of fear of dogs among a significant number of people. Moreover, there are a lack of budget, training, initiative, coordination, etc., for such programme.

Again, while confinement of animals through conventional zoos around the world is being gradually eradicated, in our country, planning and investment in this regard is not visible. Rather, news of importing new animals to Dhaka Zoo is often reported. In the meantime, it was reported that a lion in the zoo left its cage on December 5. Although this incident did not bring any sad news, the lion's decrepit health has saddened animal lovers.

The hope is that in addition to the news of the arrest in the puppies killing incident on December 3, another report covered an event that distribute compensation cheques to the affected people by wild elephants in Anwara, Chattogram while the Banshkhali range officer of the forest department said that elephants are the guests of the locals. Therefore, even if the guests come and eat the crops, the locals should not harm the elephants. The government will compensate the crops. So, from now on, no one should harm any elephants. At that event, 11 people were given compensation of Tk 4.35 lakh. This is undoubtedly a commendable initiative by the Forest Department. More such initiatives are expected to be taken in the country for animal welfare.

A different report published on the same day disclosed that fur (materials made from animal fur) has now been banned on the New York Fashion Week. Although this rule will be effective from September 2026. However, it is hoped that this decision will help American designers think more deeply about animals from now on. Earlier, London Fashion Week banned the use of fur from 2018.

On January 14, 2010, the then cabinet approved the proposal to change the Bangla name of the Ministry of Fisheries and Animal Resources and various departments under it, introducing Prani instead of Pashu to show more sensitivity, and although the Animal Welfare Act was enacted in the country in 2019, brutality has not yet been eliminated from society. Although the existing Animal Welfare Act, 2019, is an important start to prevent cruelty against animals, it is still clearly incapable and insufficient to address real challenges.

The Constitution of Bangladesh recognizes the protection and improvement of environment and biodiversity as the responsibility of the state. Now it is high time for the state to fulfill that responsibility. The law cannot be limited to paper rules and regulations; rather, the legal rights of all animals in the country must be ensured on the basis of human values ​​and justice. Because one of the criteria for measuring the moral progress of the citizens of the country is their kind and humane behavior towards innocent, voiceless and helpless animals. Therefore, immediate state initiatives and practical actions to ensure animal welfare, such as necessary reforms of the existing legislature, proper enforcement, rescue and rehabilitation, changes the concept of the traditional zoo, coordination among authorities, enough shelter for stray animals, adequate budget, awareness, initiatives, campaign, outreach and education on kindness and necessity towards animals, will help in instilling love for animals in the minds of people and will prevent the recurrence of such brutal incidents.

Published in Dhaka Tribune as Long Read (Op-ed) on 10 December 2025 on page 5.

Published in New Age as Lead Op-ed on 12 December 2025 on page 8.

 Published as Op-ed on Daily Bonik Barta (Online Version) on 12 December 2025.

Published as Sub-editorial in Ajker Patrika on 4 January 2026 on page 4.

The Punished Pardon: Can an Approver be Penalised?

The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)-1 has delivered the first verdict for crimes against humanity committed during the July uprising recently, while ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan were sentenced to death. Although another accused and subsequently considered as an approver under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act (ICTA), 1973, in the same case, Ex-Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun was sentenced to five years in prison despite being convicted of the same crime.

Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun's sentence has created a topic of discussion in the country. A report in Prothom Alo says that the family members of the July martyrs are not happy to accept the lenient punishment of only five years in prison. The families have demanded that he be sentenced to at least life imprisonment. On the other hand, some in the legal community believe that he should have been acquitted as an approver under the law.

Section 15 of the ICTA deals with the provision of ‘approver’ although the Act does not provide any definition to it, and the term is used as heading/marginal note of the mentioned section. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898 also neither defined nor used the term, but it is usually applied to a person, supposed to be directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence, to whom a pardon is granted under section 337 of the Code with a view to securing his testimony against other persons guilty of the offence. In cases in which a pardon is tendered under the CrPC, the intended approver should always be made clearly informed of the extent of the pardon offered to him; it should be explained to him that he is being tendered a pardon and will not be prosecuted in respect of such and such a case, and no others. Former police chief Chowdhury is the first person declared as approver under the Act, and that is why his lenient penalty creates debate regarding its suitability.

As per media reports, during the charge hearing, the tribunal asked him whether he was guilty or innocent. At that moment, the former IGP pleaded guilty and said, "I plead guilty. I am willing to voluntarily disclose the truth and details of all the circumstances related to the case." Consequently, the tribunal granted his plea and treated him as an approver for the case. Since then, he has been turned into a prosecution witness and gave crucial evidence. The vital legal question now arises whether a prosecution witness, who was an accused in the case, should be awarded a harsh sentence or be acquitted if the conditions are fulfilled.

According to media sources, the Chief Prosecutor of the Tribunal said about the fate of the approver earlier and opined that it is the exclusive jurisdiction, while the tribunal can pardon him if a full and true disclosure of the crime is revealed through his testimony or make any other order. The conditions for such pardon outlined in the law are i) full (not partial), ii) true (not fabricated) disclosure about the iii) whole (not in part) of the circumstances by the approver.

In this case, the ICT pronounced that the former Police chief’s role/contribution/confession/cooperation in proving the charges in the case as an approver were taken into consideration, which indicates that he has fulfilled the conditions. Because of that, he has been awarded a lighter punishment than his co-accused, although the tribunal convicted Sheikh Hasina, Asaduzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mamun for instigation, incitement, issuing order to mass killing, offences under superior command responsibility, and joint criminal enterprise.  

Another question is whether there is any exception when the tribunal can inflict punishment to the approver. The answer is if the approver does not fulfil the above conditions, then the pardon will be revoked. In that case, the approver can be tried for the original offense for which s/he was pardoned, and his/her own confession/statement given as part of the pardon process can be used against him/her in that trial. Moreover, punishment can also be given if the approver is found to have committed a different crime that is not covered by the pardon. Hence, the pardon offered under S. 15 does not provide blanket immunity for all criminal activities of the approver.

The complexity does not end here. Now the question is, what does the word pardon mean as used in the law? Does it mean acquittal or a lesser punishment than what should have been given? It requires an interpretation from the court to avoid confusion. However, section 26 of the ICTA has overriding effect over all other laws, including the CrPC and the Evidence Act of the country.

Nonetheless, if we scrutiny into international criminal law jurisprudence then we will see Article 65 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides a framework for proceedings on an admission of guilt where the tribunal is not bound by the admission and must satisfy itself that: i) the accused understands the nature and consequences of the admission, ii) the admission is made voluntarily after sufficient consultation with defense counsel and such admission is supported by the facts of the case, based on the charges, any evidence presented by the prosecutor, and any other materials presented by the accused. 

Nevertheless, it is clear in the Rome Statute that the accused remains accused not turn into a prosecution witness, and the Chamber may convict the accused even if the accused satisfies the above requirements. Hence, there is no scope for a predetermined or lenient sentence for an admission under Article 78. In addition, the Guidelines for Agreements Regarding Admission of Guilt adopted by the ICC heavily emphasize the Court's independent duty to establish the truth. Judges must examine not just the agreement between the parties, but also other evidence presented by the prosecutor and any other evidence, which can include victim representations and other sources, to ensure the facts are complete. Besides, the Guidelines explicitly recognize the need for victims to be informed of the proceedings and to be able to present their views and concerns, ensuring the process does not overlook their interests.

In contrast, the statutes and rules of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) contained provisions for formal plea agreements under Rules 62 ter of the ICTY and 62 bis of the ICTR. An accused could plead guilty to specific charges, often after negotiations with the prosecutor, who might agree to drop other counts or recommend a sentence. However, the Trial Chamber was not bound by the agreement. Judges had to verify that the plea was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal and that a sufficient factual basis for the crimes existed. In these cases, a convicted person received a sentence determined by the judges, with a guilty plea being a significant mitigating factor, often leading to a substantially reduced term.

To understand the issue of pardon in international criminal jurisprudence, we should further look into the primary goals of international criminal law and tribunals are not just to punish, but to establish a historical record of atrocities, promote reconciliation, deter future crimes, whereas a unilateral pardon could undermine these goals by appearing to offer impunity. Sentences are meant to reflect the individual's guilt and the gravity of the crime, while a pardon would circumvent this carefully calibrated judicial process. Hence, someone like Mr Mamun, who was a superior as the police chief, is criminally liable for crimes against humanity, and a complete pardon or acquittal is incompatible with the core principle of individual criminal responsibility for international atrocities, which seeks to eliminate impunity.

Now the question is, was he punished without getting the opportunity for a fair trial? How can a prosecution witness be punished without violating the conditions? Or did he get a chance to call witnesses on his behalf? Did he get chance to cross-examine the witnesses brought against him? Or was he sentenced based on the guilt pleaded at the beginning of the trial?

Although there is now some confusion about these issues, it is clear that despite repeated amendments, there are still many ambiguities and loopholes in our ICT Act and the law has not yet reached international standards. Due to these legal ambiguities and weaknesses, there is now an opportunity to question the trial process and punishment of Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun. In particular, the provisions related to the approver did not follow either the prevailing law in the country or international standards. As a result, this punishment could not pass the criteria of fairness in any aspect. As a result, justice may now be obstructed, and it has created an opportunity to question the integrity and fairness of the overall trial process.

Published in the Bonik Barta as Sub-editorial on 21 November 2025 on page 4.

Published on the Prothom Alo (Online Version) on 22 November 2025 as Opinion.

Published on The Daily Star (Online Version) on 5 December 2025.