Foreign Affairs State Minister’s Remarks on Dual Citizenship Threaten Press Freedom: TIB

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has described Foreign Affairs State Minister Humayun Kabir’s response to questions about his dual citizenship as an example of the “shoot the messenger” tendency associated with the country’s former authoritarian era.

In a statement issued Tuesday (August 25), TIB said the state minister should have transparently explained whether the appointment of a person holding dual citizenship as a state minister under the technocrat quota was constitutional. However, when journalists asked specific questions about the issue, he responded with counter-questions instead of providing a direct answer.

TIB said refusing to answer journalists’ questions about matters of public interest and responding with anger or hostile remarks poses a threat to a free media, independent journalism and the public’s right to information.

TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman said the appointment of a dual citizen as a state minister under the technocrat quota is unconstitutional. He cited Article 56(2) of the Constitution, which requires a non-member appointed as a minister or state minister to be eligible for election to Parliament.

He further referred to Article 66(2)(c), under which a person who acquires citizenship of a foreign state or acknowledges allegiance to such a state is disqualified from being elected to Parliament.

According to TIB, retaining dual citizenship while being appointed as a state minister under the technocrat quota therefore raises a constitutional question. The organization said the minister himself has become subject to scrutiny by accepting the position without clarifying the matter.

Dr Iftekharuzzaman said that when journalists asked specific questions, the state minister allegedly responded with remarks such as “Who is reporting this?” and “Why are they so concerned?” rather than answering directly.

He described this as a reflection of the “shoot the messenger” practice of the previous authoritarian period.

“The key issue is not who published the report or who raised the question. The key question is whether the minister’s foreign citizenship remained valid when he assumed office,” Iftekharuzzaman said. He added that answering such a clear constitutional and public-interest question directly is the minister’s responsibility.

TIB urged public officials not to treat journalists’ questions as threats. It said that following the political transition brought about by the July mass uprising and growing public expectations for accountable governance, the right to information and the opportunity to question authorities on matters of public interest have become even more important.

The TIB executive director said people holding important state positions are expected to provide fact-based and direct answers. He argued that the state minister could have set an example of transparency and accountability by presenting the necessary evidence.

Instead, he said, expressing anger and making hostile counter-questions toward media outlets and journalists who raised the dual-citizenship issue was inappropriate for a state minister.

TIB warned that such reactions could create undue pressure on journalists and produce a “chilling effect” on independent journalism. It could also encourage a perception that questioning people in power or holding state positions on uncomfortable issues is risky.

The organization also said the controversy surrounding the dual citizenship of a state minister has potential international implications given the importance of the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

TIB therefore called on the government to immediately publish accurate and documentary evidence regarding the state minister’s actual citizenship status and to take an appropriate decision concerning the constitutional validity of his appointment.

It also urged the government to publicly disclose the status and supporting documentation of any other minister, state minister or equivalent official whose dual citizenship may be questioned, in the interests of transparency and constitutional accountability.