Information about officials who refused involvement in enforced disappearances sent to Sheikh Hasina

The Commission of Inquiry into Disappearances has revealed that it has received information about certain officials who refused to get involved in enforced disappearances and killings. 

In some cases, these officials even wrote to their superiors expressing their refusal—and these communications were reported directly to then prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

This information is documented in the commission’s second interim report, submitted to interim government’s chief adviser professor Muhammad Yunus on 4 June.

The report, portions of which were made public last Monday, highlights that Sheikh Hasina was informed not only of those who executed such operations but also of those who declined to be involved. One striking example is detailed in the report.

According to the report, an officer in the intelligence wing of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) received an order to kill a detainee, who had been held in custody for several days. The detainee’s location had reportedly been leaked due to a colleague’s carelessness, and the resulting fear of exposure prompted the order for the detainee’s execution.

However, the officer in question refused to comply. He allegedly told his senior, “If he must be killed, then remove me from this post. I will not carry out the killing.” 

Ultimately, the prisoner was not killed, and the officer remained in service after the political uprising of 5 August. The commission noted this incident as evidence that disobeying unlawful orders did not always carry immediate negative consequences.

The report further states that this particularly revealing incident was discovered by chance. While reviewing abandoned documents left behind at the Prime Minister’s Office in Ganabhaban after 5 August 2024, a staff of the International Crimes Tribunal found two handwritten letters. These letters were authored by two RAB officers and addressed to the director of RAB’s intelligence wing. In them, the officers clearly refused to participate in an illegal killing operation.

Though not a formal official correspondence, the commission described those letters as personal declarations of conscience. Despite their informal nature, the letters were reportedly delivered to Sheikh Hasina, who preserved them in her personal files from 2015 until her departure for India on 5 August 2024.

One of the letters quoted in the report read: “... When the RAB authorities ordered me to go on the operation, I said that if there was any plan to carry out extrajudicial killings or firing, which is not permitted by the law of the land, then I cannot take part in such activities.” 

The interim report also references statements made by then Army chief General Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan following 5 August. According to those accounts, the officers who disobeyed the illegal orders had taken shelter at a military police checkpoint and were subsequently returned to the army.

Notably, no disciplinary action was taken against them despite their defiance. However, their refusal reportedly became known at the highest levels of the political leadership at the time.

The commission emphasised this incident in its report as a rare and significant example. It noted that the mere existence of these handwritten declarations—and the fact that they were brought to the direct attention of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina—speaks volumes about the depth of her personal involvement and oversight.

Yet, the commission concluded, the discovery of these letters after 5 August not only illustrates Sheikh Hasina’s awareness and active engagement in the operations of the repressive apparatus—it also serves as a rare reminder that even in the most tightly controlled and dangerous environment, space existed, however limited, for individual conscience to resist illegal commands.

It is, the report notes, a testament to the fact that ethical disobedience remained possible, even if rare, within the structure of state power.

The interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into Disappearances, which highlights political involvement in the incidents, states that senior officials of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) at the time were effectively serving as intermediaries between the military and the political leadership—particularly Sheikh Hasina and Maj. Gen. (retd) Tariq Ahmed Siddique.

As an example, former DGFI Director General Lt. Gen. (retd) Akbar Hossain told the commission that he had directly discussed the matter of Hummam Quader Chowdhury—son of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, who was being held in the Joint Interrogation Cell (JIC)—with Sheikh Hasina herself.

A junior officer in the DGFI also told the commission that he had overheard his director speaking about the future of a prisoner in a manner that indicated Sheikh Hasina was not only aware of the detainee but had also given her own opinion on the matter. The tone in which the comment was made, the commission notes, strongly suggests that Sheikh Hasina was involved even in seemingly minor decisions within the institution.

The commission’s interim report states that these senior officials functioned at a critical interface—transmitting political orders to the military’s operational machinery. It emphasises that the disappearances were not independently carried out by security forces but were implemented based on political directives.

For years, the Awami League has consistently denied the existence of enforced disappearances in Bangladesh, offering alternative narratives such as voluntary disappearances or criminal involvement on the part of the missing persons. However, the commission highlights a dramatic shift in the party’s stance following the flight of key witnesses, who could testify to Sheikh Hasina’s direct involvement.

The report notes that Awami League spokesperson Mohammad Ali Arafat, speaking publicly on 16 April, once again denied any responsibility of the party or its leadership. However, this time, he claimed that if enforced disappearances did occur during the Awami League’s tenure, they could only have happened at the initiative of the military—not under instructions from Sheikh Hasina or any member of her cabinet.

According to the commission, this emerging narrative from the Awami League seeks to place sole blame on the military for the disappearances. The report asserts that this position is both factually incorrect and an attempt to entirely obscure the role and responsibility of the political leadership.

The interim report also draws attention to a disturbing new trend. It states that some individuals who, according to evidence, were not originally involved in the disappearances are now becoming complicit in what it describes as a “second-tier” crime. These individuals are allegedly helping those against whom legitimate arrest warrants have been issued to escape, thus committing new offences in the process.

The Commission of Inquiry into Enforced Disappearances has reviewed intelligence agency documents concerning seven officials found to have been involved in serious crimes, including enforced disappearances.

According to the report, the nature of these disappearances clearly indicates that they were not isolated acts committed by a single individual; rather, each incident involved the participation of multiple members from the respective unit—making it almost impossible for intelligence agencies to remain unaware of such activities.

These units were regularly staffed with members of the intelligence services whose specific responsibility was to monitor the conduct of their colleagues and report back to higher authorities. Despite this, the word “disappearance” was never explicitly mentioned in any of the surveillance documents.

The commission found that the documents reviewed offered detailed accounts of the possible political affiliations of the officials involved. Even distant family connections—such as the political leanings of a wife’s aunt—were noted. Additionally, the documents included various allegations against these officials, including corruption, disciplinary violations, or other forms of misconduct. However, none of the records mentioned serious crimes such as enforced disappearances or extrajudicial killings.

The interim report states that during Sheikh Hasina's tenure, questions raised within the security forces regarding issues such as enforced disappearances, political neutrality, or institutional accountability often led to personal and professional repercussions for those who spoke out.

One officer, now in his forties, told the inquiry commission that he had expressed his personal views on enforced disappearances and found that the then government did not uphold the established legal and ethical standards. As a result, he was systematically isolated from his peers.

He said that before each new posting, his colleagues at the new workplace were warned not to trust him. Even his family communications were placed under surveillance. Fabricated allegations were brought against him—despite never having violated any disciplinary codes.

His career advancement was also derailed through the use of administrative tools such as internal investigations and the cancellation of his security clearances.