Who Controls Bangladesh’s Oscar Committee? Questions Raised Over Film Selection and Funding

Questions over transparency, alleged irregularities and financial accountability have emerged surrounding the committee responsible for selecting Bangladesh’s official film submission to the 99th Academy Awards, following complaints reportedly raised by members of the country’s film society movement.

Representatives associated with a section of the Bangladesh film society community have alleged that the selection process lacks adequate consultation with member organisations and that decision-making remains concentrated among a limited group of influential individuals. They are demanding greater transparency regarding the committee’s composition, selection procedures, financial arrangements and the sources of funding for events associated with Bangladesh’s Oscar submission.

The controversy centres on the announcement made on September 27 at the Pan Pacific Sonargaon Dhaka, where filmmaker Mejbaur Rahman Sumon’s “Roid” was selected to represent Bangladesh in the International Feature Film category at the 99th Academy Awards. Reports published by The Daily Star, United News of Bangladesh and other media outlets confirm that the announcement took place at the hotel. However, the allegations of financial misconduct and improper influence described by the complainants have not been independently established by the available reporting.

According to the Bangladesh Federation of Film Societies’ official website, the Oscar Bangladesh Committee invited eligible films for consideration in August, setting September 16 as the submission deadline. A notice published on September 17 listed five initial submissions: “Domm,” directed by Redoan Rony; “Roid,” directed by Mejbaur Rahman Sumon; “The University of Chankharpul,” directed by Monirul Akash Haque; “Delupi,” directed by Mohammad Touqir Islam; and “Manusher Bagan,” directed by Nurul Alam Atique.

Subsequent reports from The Daily Star and UNB stated that “Manusher Bagan” voluntarily withdrew, leaving four films in contention. The committee ultimately selected “Roid” following its evaluation process. These details are documented in publicly available announcements and news reports, although they do not, by themselves, resolve the concerns raised about organisational transparency.

In the supplied statement, Barua Manojit Dhimon, identified as president of the Bangladesh Film Societies Federation, said that transparency, merit and accountability must be ensured when selecting a film to represent Bangladesh internationally. He called for an impartial examination of allegations concerning the selection process and argued that no individual or group should exercise unchecked authority over decisions affecting the wider film community.

Dhimon also called on the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to examine the allegations and take appropriate action if irregularities are established. His position reflects the complainants’ demand for institutional accountability rather than a conclusion that misconduct has already been proven.

Saiman Tarek, identified in the supplied statement as the federation’s general secretary, raised separate allegations concerning the organisation’s leadership and its relationship with the Bangladesh Short Film Forum. He claimed that political influence affected the organisation’s activities during the previous government and questioned whether changes in leadership and organisational arrangements after August 5 had adequately addressed those concerns.

Tarek also said the complainants intended to raise the matter with the Oscar committee. These claims, including allegations of political patronage and misuse of organisational resources, require documentary evidence and responses from the individuals and organisations concerned. They should not be treated as established findings without independent verification.

Another major issue raised by the complainants concerns the cost of holding the September 27 press conference at a five-star hotel. They want the organisers to disclose who financed the event, how much was spent and whether any public or institutional funds were involved. They also question why member film societies and clubs were allegedly not adequately informed or consulted about the event and the selection process.

The publicly available information reviewed for this report confirms that the committee announced the selection at the hotel. However, it does not establish the event’s total cost, the source of its funding or any financial wrongdoing. No documentary evidence establishing the alleged payments or misuse of funds was identified in the sources reviewed.

The Bangladesh Federation of Film Societies has published rules governing the formation and operation of the Oscar Bangladesh Committee. According to those rules, the federation oversees the committee’s formation, with members drawn from different professional areas of the film industry. The published selection procedure says eligible films should be collectively evaluated on artistic quality, cultural representation and compliance with Academy requirements, followed by discussion and voting.

The existence of these published rules provides a basis for assessing the complainants’ concerns. Relevant questions include whether the rules were followed in practice, whether member organisations received adequate information, and whether the committee’s decisions and financial arrangements can be documented clearly.

The allegations also raise a broader question about the relationship between film society organisations and the selection of Bangladesh’s Oscar entry. While the selection process must comply with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ requirements, local stakeholders may reasonably seek clarity about the national committee’s governance and its engagement with the wider film community.

An effective review would examine committee appointment records, meeting minutes, voting procedures, correspondence with member organisations, event invoices and financial records. It should also provide the federation and the committee an opportunity to respond to each specific allegation. Any findings should distinguish administrative shortcomings from evidence of financial misconduct or deliberate interference.

As of October 22, 2026, the sources reviewed for this report do not establish that the allegations have resulted in an official investigation or a finding of wrongdoing. The complainants’ demands therefore remain allegations requiring verification, rather than proven conclusions.

For Bangladesh’s film industry, the central issue is whether the selection process can command confidence among filmmakers, producers, film societies and the wider public. Publishing relevant records, explaining the committee’s procedures and responding to documented concerns could help address questions about accountability while protecting the credibility of the country’s international film representation.