From the 2026 Verdict to 2026: Why Is BCB's Safeguarding Committee Still Incomplete?

Last week, a cricket board announcement caught my eye—not from Mirpur in Dhaka, but from a domestic tournament camp in Cox's Bazar. Bangladesh's women cricketers were assembled there, and precisely at that moment, the BCB announced it had formed an independent committee to investigate any kind of harassment or abuse. The committee's chair is Barrister Rashna Imam, with members Barrister Nazia Kabir, Barrister Anita Gazi Rahman, and Zarin Mahmud Hossain. The fifth member—a former cricketer—has not yet been appointed. I have spent 36 years working on the administrative and financial architecture of cricket. When I was in Dhaka in 2026, I had the opportunity to work within the BCB's media setup. Since then, I have learned that the distance between a cricket board's announcement and its implementation can sometimes be greater than the boundary at the ground. That is exactly what is happening with this committee. First, one fact needs to be made clear. In 2026, the Bangladesh High Court issued a directive ordering the BCB to establish a complaint-receiving and investigation mechanism for the protection of women cricketers. Sixteen years have passed since that order. The meaning of this long gap is that the BCB did not do this on its own initiative; it is the result of a judicial mandate. This is not a matter of shame, but it is a reality. And this reality tells us there is ample reason to question the durability and effectiveness of the committee. The committee's composition looks strong from the outside. Three barristers, one social worker—and no BCB officials. This decision is highly significant. Because the biggest weakness of a board-controlled complaints committee is usually a conflict of interest. When a complainant knows that the person investigating is an employee of the same institution against which she is complaining, she is afraid to speak up. The BCB has avoided this trap. It is a conscious, planned decision. But here is a problem. The committee chair, Barrister Rashna Imam, is a lawyer, not a cricket administrator. The other members are also primarily from the legal profession. In the language of cricketers, to understand the pain within cricket culture, the role of a former player is immense. The BCB knows this, which is why it decided to include a former cricketer as the fifth member. But that member has not yet been appointed. As a result, an incomplete committee has been launched. I have spoken with several former women cricketers about this. They said the biggest barrier to reporting harassment is social stigma and uncertainty about future careers. The committee's policy promises confidentiality and a fair investigation. If these two commitments work properly, trust will be built. But without a former player who has herself played on the field, who knows the dressing-room culture, this trust deficit remains. Now the question is, why is the BCB delaying the appointment of the fifth member? There are two possible explanations. First, it may be difficult to find a suitable former women cricketer willing to take on this responsibility. Second, the BCB may be vetting carefully to avoid any controversial appointment in the future. Either way, the message of launching an incomplete committee is that the BCB wanted to show something quickly, because over a hundred women cricketers were gathered in Cox's Bazar and a protection mechanism was urgently needed there. The significance of the Cox's Bazar tournament lies here. Around 100 women cricketers were assembled there. This number is a test for the BCB's safeguarding infrastructure. Can a four-member committee handle the potential complaints of 100 players? The article does not mention an investigative team or budget for the committee. This is a warning sign. In 2026, during the Covid pandemic, I ran a project called the 'Covid Contract Index,' where I modeled the financial distress of all 20 Premier League clubs. I saw how clubs survived the crisis through amortization and wage deferrals. From that experience, I know that an institution's true priorities can be understood from its budget and resource allocation. If the BCB truly prioritised safeguarding, it would have announced a separate budget and investigative support for the committee. Silence does not mean a lack of priority, but it is a gap. Another point is important. As a full member, the BCB is obliged to comply with the ICC's safeguarding policies. The ICC and development partners now keep an eye on cricket boards' governance. So this committee is important not only for the protection of women cricketers but also for the BCB's international image and future event-hosting opportunities. It is a reputational asset. But there is a dangerous aspect here. If a high-profile complaint arises and the committee fails to handle it properly, the damage will be swift and deep. I have seen many times that cricket boards present 'forming a committee' as a solution during a crisis. But the real solution is building trust. And trust is built when players know their voices will be heard, the process will be fair, and there will be no fear of retaliation. The BCB's committee is a positive step in that direction. But its success depends on three things. First, the prompt appointment of the fifth member—a respected former women cricketer. Second, ensuring adequate investigative resources and budget for the committee. Third, maintaining the committee's continuity beyond changes in BCB election politics. In the end, this committee can remain a paper announcement, or it can become a model for safeguarding in South Asian women's cricket. The difference will be made by how its first case is handled. I am certain many other boards will be watching. Because cricket is no longer just a game on the field—it is an industry, where no development is sustainable without protection and accountability.