When the Election Commission (EC) of Bangladesh published its initial list of 73 organizations on September 28, 2025, for registration as election observers, the move was intended to signal transparency and openness. Instead, the publication has opened a Pandora’s box of questions, exposing the credibility gap that continues to haunt Bangladesh’s electoral system. What was supposed to be a process to ensure fairness in the upcoming elections has revealed weaknesses in vetting, questionable political affiliations, and even dormant or fraudulent organizations attempting to masquerade as legitimate watchdogs.

One case that illustrates the problem clearly is Agrajatra Samaj Unnayan Sangstha, listed at number 29 in the EC’s public notice. Its address is recorded as Sindurmati, Rajarhat, Kurigram. When journalists visited the area to verify, they were directed to the residence of Humayun Kabir, the executive director. Kabir admitted that his organization is no longer active, though at one time it worked on disability education and women’s socio-economic development.

Local residents recounted how the group had once managed the VGD program under the Department of Women’s Affairs in 2020 but was later sued for financial irregularities. That case remains unresolved. The EC’s choice to include such an organization raises the obvious question: how did it qualify for observer status in the first place?

Agrajatra Samaj Unnayan Sangstha is hardly an isolated example. Reporters investigating the listed organizations found many of them to be little more than signboards on residences, abandoned houses, or even buildings under construction. Garib Unnayan Sangstha, also in Kurigram, turned out to be run from the home of its executive director Abdul Latif. Only he and his son were present in a small office room attached to their residence.

Another listed group, Alokito Samaj Kalyan Sangstha, gave its official address as Bishyakhali Bazar, Jhenaidah Sadar. Yet no trace of the office could be found there. Instead, its executive director, Rokhsana, was discovered running a cosmetics and jewelry shop in Chaklapara, far removed from the declared site. Basabo Janakalyan Sangstha, with an address in “Ekushey Tower” in West Agargaon, Dhaka, provided a location that turned out to be a building still under construction. Its executive director, Mithu Hossain Sikder, had merely purchased a flat there.

Similarly, Services for Equity and Economic Development (SID) was found to be operating from an abandoned two-room house in Jessore’s Monirampur, while ABASH in Natore turned out to be no more than a family house with a signboard hung in front.

These revelations expose a troubling pattern: organizations with little or no activity, minimal infrastructure, and questionable credibility have managed to secure a place on the EC’s preliminary observer list.

The EC’s own guidelines clearly state that organizations with direct or past political affiliations in their leadership cannot qualify as election observers. Yet multiple media reports highlight the opposite.

For example, Md. Ali Amjad Khan, who heads Sheba Foundation in Mymensingh, was once an Awami League candidate in the 2001 parliamentary elections. Abu Hanif Master of the Center for Social Development in Kurigram served as general secretary of his local Awami League branch. On the other side of the political divide, Bashir Ahmed, general secretary of Sangati Social Welfare Organization, was once a Chhatra Dal leader. Moktar Hossain of Hilful-Fuzul Social Welfare Organization has well-documented links to the Islamist political movement.

These affiliations point to a serious breach of the commission’s own rules. Instead of ensuring neutrality, the EC has allowed politically entangled groups to enter the observation process, thereby compromising the very idea of impartial monitoring.

It must also be acknowledged that some well-established organizations with prior experience in election monitoring are included on the list. Democracy Watch, a long-standing observer group led by Taleya Rahman, appears alongside names like Odhikar, Abdul Momen Khan Memorial Foundation, and Pallisree in Dinajpur. These organizations have institutional capacity, documented work in democratic development, and in some cases, prior participation in election observation.

Yet even here, concerns remain. For instance, Abdul Momen Khan Memorial Foundation is run by lawyer Roxana Khandaker, wife of BNP standing committee member Moin Khan. Odhikar’s leadership has past connections to interim governments and advisors, and critics argue that this blurs the line between civic monitoring and political interests.

This mixture of dormant, politically tied, and genuine organizations within the same list undermines the credibility of the entire exercise.

Akhtar Ahmed, Senior Secretary of the EC Secretariat, admitted to reporters that while some checks were made-such as confirming addresses and political affiliations-the verification was “not very systematic.” According to him, the public notice inviting objections was a way to crowdsource information about these organizations. “We will review them again after receiving credible information,” he said.

But such statements hardly inspire confidence. The EC’s responsibility is to act as the guardian of electoral integrity. Outsourcing basic verification of observer groups to the public suggests both a lack of preparedness and a troubling casualness about a matter that directly affects perceptions of fairness in the electoral process.

The controversy is not unprecedented. Ahead of the 12th National Parliament elections in 2024-dismissed by many as a “dummy election”-the EC listed 96 observer organizations, including two notorious ones: the Election Monitoring Forum and the SAARC Human Rights Foundation. Both were rejected later after failing to meet basic conditions, though their initial inclusion had already cast doubts on the commission’s vetting process.

It is worth recalling that the then-Chief Election Commissioner, Kazi Habibul Awal, who oversaw those flawed elections, is now in prison. That fact alone illustrates the political and institutional rot that has corroded the credibility of Bangladesh’s electoral oversight.

Election expert Abdul Alim, a former member of the Electoral Reform Commission, has been blunt in his assessment. He notes that the EC’s list is preliminary and may change after hearings, but insists that the very process seems inverted. “Organizations that want to increase their status are applying to become observers. But it should be the other way around. Acceptable organizations, respected by the people, should be monitoring elections and presenting their assessments. That way, citizens could genuinely understand whether the election was good or bad”.

His words cut to the heart of the problem: if the institutions tasked with ensuring fairness themselves lack credibility, the democratic process becomes little more than a hollow ritual.

Bangladesh’s electoral history is already marred by boycotts, disputed results, and widespread skepticism about fairness. The observer process was meant to strengthen transparency, reassure voters, and provide independent assessments of electoral integrity. But the inclusion of ghost organizations, politically linked groups, and inactive entities threatens to further erode public trust.

The EC has invited objections until October 20, after which it promises a review. Whether this process will actually remove the questionable organizations and restore confidence remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the EC has once again placed itself under scrutiny. Its handling of election observers will serve as an early litmus test for the credibility of the electoral process itself.

If Bangladesh’s elections are to command even a fraction of public trust, the commission must go beyond cosmetic measures. It must enforce its own rules rigorously, exclude politically tainted and inactive organizations, and give priority to those with proven records in promoting democracy and human rights. Anything less will only deepen suspicions that the machinery of democracy is being manipulated in the shadows, while citizens are left powerless to demand accountability.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel