From the 2026 Verdict to 2026: BCB's Safeguarding Committee Meets Its First Test Before 100 Cricketers in Cox's Bazar

Morning light falls on a training ground in Cox's Bazar. In one corner a few young cricketers stretch, another stands holding a helmet. The clock is nearing half past nine. At this very hour, the Bangladesh Cricket Board's (BCB) new committee begins its first working day — nearly four hundred kilometres from Dhaka, yet its first real test is about to start on this very ground. This is no match scene; it is the scene of an institution being born. In an interview on 3 November, Chandra Banerjee, chairman of the BCB women's wing, confirmed that an independent committee has been formed to address complaints of sexual harassment and any other form of abuse, and that it has already begun operations. The committee is led by Barrister Rashna Imam, with members Barrister Nazia Kabir, Barrister Anita Gazi Rahman and Zarin Mahmud Hossain. A former cricketer is planned as the fifth member, but that seat remains vacant. No BCB official has been placed on the committee — sources indicated this was a deliberate decision. The architecture rests on a long legal shadow. A 2026 High Court directive mandated the creation of this committee. Measured that way, a verdict has taken nearly sixteen years to implement. That long gap is itself the biggest structural fact of this news. Whether an institution compelled by law can quickly prove its own effectiveness is now the central question. I have covered Bangladesh cricket for twenty years, watching boards, committees and election battles. My experience tells me the real test of any cricket board committee begins not on the day it is formed, but on the day it first confronts a difficult complaint. That testing ground is now prepared in Cox's Bazar. Around one hundred women cricketers are currently assembled in Cox's Bazar for domestic tournaments. This density is not merely a logistics issue. When so many young and teenage cricketers are concentrated in one place, the load on safeguarding operations naturally increases. A four-member committee facing a population of one hundred players — that ratio by itself is a warning. The report mentions that an educational class was held in Cox's Bazar and that workshops are planned. In practical terms, this class is the clearest evidence of the committee's activity. But only if these activities continue beyond the tournament window will they prove sustained commitment. There is one notable aspect in the committee's design. Composed of three barristers, it is essentially a legal framework, not a cricket-operations framework. This means the board has prioritised procedural protection and confidentiality over sporting familiarity. Banerjee has said the policy ensures confidentiality and fair process, and that this policy has been published on the BCB website. The two major barriers players face in reporting harassment — fear of publicity and fear of unfair process — are both directly addressed in the policy. This can be described as a textbook design for a safeguarding policy. Another important point is that no BCB official has been placed on the committee. An investigation committee drawn from within an institution carries the risk of conflict of interest, because complaints may arise against people who are inside the process. By making an external barrister the chair and excluding board officials, BCB has structurally raised its credibility ceiling. But there is a subtle point — the report cites sources saying this exclusion was 'deliberate'; there is no formal statement from the board explaining the rationale. This small gap is a small transparency blemish. But here lies my core doubt. The design of the committee is not in question; the question is its durability. I have seen many times that when a storm breaks in board election politics, previous committees' decisions, commitments and even structures are reconsidered anew. How far can a committee, whose birth stems from a court directive, stand above electoral politics? The fifth member — a former cricketer — remains unappointed. If this vacancy persists, it will become a proxy indicator of the board's real priorities. For players, the presence of a peer, a former cricketer, builds a bridge of credibility that a committee of lawyers alone cannot create. Last year I did not observe this committee's commencement on the ground, but rather understood it through media reports. The reality I have seen is that players do not complain — for fear that their careers may be damaged. Removing that fear is not possible simply by forming a committee; it becomes possible only when a player sees evidence that others have complained and that the process protected them. And vigilance is important here. In a safeguarding system, a rise in the number of reports is never proof that abuse is increasing; rather, it is proof that the channel is working. But media and public opinion can easily misread this. Better to pose a question than to declare. Will the fifth seat be filled before this year's anniversary, or will an empty chair itself reveal the committee's true priority?