History is often unkind to interim governments that confuse moral symbolism with governing competence. Bangladesh’s current predicament under the interim administration led by Muhammad Yunus fits that pattern uncomfortably well. What was initially framed—both at home and abroad—as a corrective pause after the resignation of the previous government is now increasingly viewed as a troubling experiment in unaccountable power. The UK Parliament’s Early Day Motion (EDM) 2428, tabled in December 2025, is not merely a parliamentary footnote. It is a diplomatic warning flare.

The motion’s language is stark: former MPs, journalists, and judges detained without charge for over a year; a documented resurgence of human rights abuses; more than 40 extrajudicial killings within 15 months; and explicit concern over minority rights and judicial due process. These are not allegations whispered by exiles or opposition activists. They are concerns formally recorded by lawmakers across Britain’s political spectrum—from Labour and the Conservatives to the Greens, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and even Jeremy Corbyn as an Independent. When such ideological diversity converges, it usually signals that something fundamental has gone wrong.

The Yunus government’s core weakness lies in its paradox. It claims legitimacy from moral authority and international goodwill, yet operates without an electoral mandate or effective domestic accountability. Interim governments are meant to stabilize, not to rule expansively. They are supposed to create conditions for credible elections, not to normalize prolonged detentions, opaque prosecutions, and coercive state behavior.

Justice delayed is justice denied—a phrase invoked directly in the EDM. In Bangladesh today, justice appears not merely........

© Blitz