Concerns over independent investigations into enforced disappearances

There has been no trace of Miraj Sheikh of Mongla in Bagerhat. His wife and family members allege that Coast Guard personnel picked him up in the evening of 10 April. The Coast Guard, however, has denied the allegation from the outset.

Following the incident, Miraj could not be found despite the family filing a general diary (GD), holding a press conference and submitting applications to various government offices. His father even approached the High Court.

On 12 July, the High Court ordered the law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities to find Miraj and produce him before the court within 15 working days. As recently as 24 August, the family said his whereabouts had remained unknown for four and a half months.

On 25 August, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said that no enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing had taken place in the country since the current government took office. He made the remarks during a meeting with the UN Development Programme’s resident representative at the Secretariat.

Against this backdrop, what happened to Miraj Sheikh remains unresolved. The case has once again raised an old question: who will investigate allegations of enforced disappearance when a state agency is accused? The question has become even more important with the new Prevention and Remedy of Enforced Disappearance Bill, 2026, tabled in parliament.

Under the ordinance issued by the interim government in 2025, the National Human Rights Commission had control over investigations into allegations of enforced disappearance. If there were suspicions that a secret detention centre or prison existed somewhere, the commission could visit the site. It was also required to continue its inquiry until a person who had disappeared was found or their fate became known.

The bill introduced by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) government in parliament has changed that framework. Control over criminal investigations into allegations of enforced disappearance has not been placed with the National Human Rights Commission.

However, the bill introduces a new provision: if a disciplinary force or any of its members is accused of enforced disappearance, that force cannot investigate the allegation itself. Following an application from any party, or on its own initiative, the government will assign the investigation to another disciplinary force or an inter-agency investigation team.

Nevertheless, questions over the independence of investigations still remain. Although the investigating agency or team would be outside the accused force, it would still operate within the structure of the state’s disciplinary forces, while the government would decide who conducts the investigation.

The new bill does not retain the arrangement under the 2025 ordinance, which placed the National Human Rights Commission at the centre of an investigation mechanism institutionally independent of agencies that could potentially be accused of abusing state power in enforced disappearance cases.

Today, Sunday, 30 August, is the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances. This year’s theme is ‘Victims first, Actions Now’. The day also marks two years since Bangladesh joined the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED)

Cases of enforced disappearance began to emerge from the start of the Awami League’s 15-and-a-half-year rule. According to the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, 10 cases were documented in 2009, the year the party came to power; the figure rose to 34 in 2010.

When BNP leader and former Dhaka ward councillor Chowdhury Alam went missing on 25 June that year, political disappearances came into widespread discussion. Such incidents began to increase around 2013–14. A large proportion of the victims were political leaders and activists.

Twenty-two days after the fall of the Awami League government, the interim government formed the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances on 27 August 2024, headed by retired Justice Moinul Islam Chowdhury. The commission was tasked with investigating allegations of enforced disappearance between 6 January 2009 and 5 August 2024. It identified 1,569 incidents as cases of enforced disappearance.

Of these, 1,282 people returned after being held illegally and secretly for periods ranging from several weeks to several years. Another 251 have not returned. The bodies of 36 others have been found. The commission also estimated that the actual number of enforced disappearance cases could be between 4,000 and 6,000.

The commission’s investigation also revealed another major limitation. Documentary evidence was found in only around 250 of the more than 1,500 complaints. The main reason for the lack of documentary evidence in the remaining cases was that police stations did not accept general diaries (GDs).

The commission’s investigation found the strongest evidence of involvement in enforced disappearances against the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), police, Detective Branch (DB) of police, and Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime (CTTC). The involvement of other agencies, including the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and National Security Intelligence (NSI), also emerged.

After Bangladesh joined the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the interim government issued the ‘Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Ordinance-2025’ on 1 December 2025. It was amended the following January.

A key feature of the ordinance was that investigations into allegations of enforced disappearance were not left to the regular police structure. Complaints could be filed directly with the National Human Rights Commission. Even if a complaint was lodged with a police station or a first-class magistrate, it had to be forwarded to the commission within 24 hours.

The commission would appoint an investigating officer. The investigation had to be completed within 90 days, with an additional 30 days allowed if necessary. Investigation reports were also initially submitted to the commission; after verification and approval, the commission would forward them to the special tribunal.

The commission was also given another important power. It could inspect prisons, lock-ups, detention centres and any other place under Bangladesh’s control. The ordinance would treat finding a person who had disappeared and investigating the crime as two separate tasks. The commission was required to continue its search until the missing person was found or their fate became known. It also would have to inform the complainant and the family of the progress of the inquiry every three months.

The ordinance provided for a special Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Tribunal to hear such cases. A central database containing all information on enforced disappearances was also placed under the supervision of the National Human Rights Commission. The commission was required to publish an annual report containing statistics on enforced disappearances, their patterns and its recommendations.

The ordinance was later introduced in parliament as a bill and was not approved. It ceased to have effect from 11 April after the constitutional deadline expired on 10 April. The BNP government then said it would formulate a more comprehensive and better law after consulting stakeholders.

After the ordinance ceased to have effect, the BNP government published a new draft law on 27 July. The cabinet approved it on 3 August, and the bill was tabled in parliament on 27 August. However, opposition lawmakers walked out of parliament before the bill was introduced. They alleged that instead of fully implementing the interim government’s reform initiatives, the government was pursuing reforms separately in a “fragmented” manner.

After the draft ‘Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Bill, 2026’ was published, only one day was allowed for public feedback. Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) criticised the one-day deadline as a “farce”. The organisation called for at least two weeks to be given to seek the views of victims of enforced disappearance, their families and relevant stakeholders.

The bill tabled in parliament defines enforced disappearance as a separate, cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence. The punishment for a general case of enforced disappearance ranges from a minimum of three years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment, along with a maximum fine of Tk 5 million.

If an enforced disappearance results in death, a body is found, or the person cannot be recovered alive or dead even after five years, those responsible may face the death penalty, life imprisonment or a minimum of five years’ imprisonment, along with a maximum fine of Tk 10 million, states the bill.

Establishing and operating secret detention centres will also constitute an offence. Liability will apply to attempts, assistance and conspiracy. In certain circumstances, the bill also provides for “command responsibility”, holding senior military and civilian officials accountable for offences committed by their subordinates.

In August 2022, the BNP called for UN-supervised, impartial investigations into cases of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings in Bangladesh.

Under Section 14(3) of the bill tabled in parliament, if a member of a force is accused of enforced disappearance, that force cannot investigate the case. However, questions remain over how independent such investigations would be.

The first question arises at the very outset of an investigation into an enforced disappearance: which force will be identified as the accused? The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances found that victims were generally picked up by people in plain clothes, while members of one force would sometimes use the name of another force to conceal their identities.

In many cases, members of one force created confusion by abducting people while posing as members of another. The commission’s report also cites examples of the Detective Branch (DB) identifying themselves as members of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), and RAB members identifying themselves as members of another force.

As a result, if a family or eyewitness is unable to establish with certainty which force took a person away, it may be difficult to apply Section 14(3) at the outset.

The second question concerns the institutional independence of the investigating body. Although the accused force would be excluded, the investigation would remain within the structure of the state’s disciplinary forces rather than being entrusted to an independent institution.

The Commission of Inquiry has said that multiple law enforcement and intelligence agencies worked together in many cases of enforced disappearance. Evidence has emerged of different teams or agencies being involved at different stages—one force picking up a person, handing them over to another force, holding them at another location, and later releasing or killing them.

The commission has also identified cases involving joint operations. This raises the question of whether a conflict of interest would truly be eliminated simply by assigning the investigation to another force instead of the one accused.

Article 12(1) of the international convention on enforced disappearance, to which Bangladesh has acceded, calls for allegations of enforced disappearance to be promptly and impartially examined and, where necessary, for a full and impartial investigation.

Article 12(4) further requires states to take measures to ensure that anyone suspected of involvement in an enforced disappearance is not in a position to influence the investigation by pressuring, intimidating or retaliating against complainants, witnesses, relatives or anyone involved in the investigation.

A technical delegation comprising two members of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances visited Bangladesh from 15 to 18 June 2025. After meeting with the government, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, law enforcement agencies and families of victims, they recommended independent oversight and an end to impunity.

Subsequently, on 17 June 2026, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and several other experts sent the government formal observations on the draft of Bangladesh’s proposed Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Act.

The UN experts’ observations said that searching for a disappeared person and conducting a criminal investigation against those responsible are not the same thing. A search should begin as soon as an enforced disappearance is reported, without waiting for a formal complaint or case to be filed. It should continue until the person’s fate and whereabouts are fully established. Families should also have the right to participate in the search.

Human rights activists consider the case of Miraj Sheikh in Bagerhat a real test of these standards. Miraj’s family has alleged that the High Court issued an order, but even after four and a half months since his disappearance, there is still no answer as to where he is.

Moreover, under the 2025 Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Ordinance, the National Human Rights Commission was empowered to inspect places of detention as part of its search and investigation into enforced disappearances. The new anti-enforced-disappearance bill tabled in parliament does not contain this provision.

The UN observations sent to Bangladesh in June said that, regardless of whether a person is held by a police, intelligence or military agency, all places of detention should be subject to inspection by an independent authority. There should also be a complete and up-to-date register recording the detainee’s name, the time and place of detention, the officer who made the arrest and any subsequent transfers.

The 2025 ordinance provided for separate Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Tribunals to be established in each division or district as necessary. The judge would be an official of the rank of a district and sessions judge. It also allowed for the appointment of special prosecutors based on recommendations from the commission.

The bill tabled in parliament does not retain the structure of separate enforced disappearance tribunals. The cases will instead be tried in sessions judge courts.

Questions have also been raised about trials in general sessions courts. Cases involving enforced disappearance may involve complex issues such as records from military and intelligence agencies, chains of command, the roles of multiple forces, prolonged secret detention, and digital and forensic evidence.

This has also raised concerns over whether judges, prosecutors and investigators have the capacity to handle such cases if they are tried in ordinary sessions courts rather than special tribunals.

Under the 2025 ordinance, a court could impose a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment if, after a trial, it was satisfied that an allegation of enforced disappearance had knowingly been made falsely and with the intention of harassment. The new bill increases the maximum sentence to five years.

Those concerned say that while there is a need to prevent false complaints, the impact of such a provision in enforced disappearance cases could be different from that in other offences. This is because allegations of enforced disappearance generally involve a state force or a powerful official.

Witnesses and family members are already vulnerable and often feel insecure. Questions also remain over how a clear distinction can be ensured in practice between failing to prove an allegation and deliberately making a false one.

Moreover, under the 2025 ordinance, the central database on enforced disappearances was placed under the supervision of the National Human Rights Commission, while the new bill places it under government supervision.

The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances has found evidence that arrest dates were altered and periods of secret detention were concealed from official records. Therefore, who controls the database and how the integrity of the information will be ensured are also significant for future investigations and trials.

Justice Moinul Islam Chowdhury, chairman of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, believes it is difficult for victims’ families to identify at the outset which force was involved in a disappearance. The safest approach, he says, is to have the investigation conducted by an independent body that is not controlled by the police or any other force. Only then will a fair and impartial investigation be possible.