On 10 April, Miraj Sheikh, a resident of Joymani Thota village in Mongla area of Bagerhat, was forcibly taken away by several individuals introducing themselves as plain-clothed Coast Guard members.
Eyewitness accounts, including family members of Miraj Sheikh, suggest Coast Guard involvement in this abduction (Prothom Alo, 16 May 2026; The Dissent, 30 July 2026).
Human Rights Watch has described this incident as the first enforced disappearance after the July mass uprising in 2024. The sequence of events concerning Miraj Sheikh needs our careful attention.
The day after Miraj Sheikh was taken, his family went to the Coast Guard office in Digrage, Mongla, where they were told, "He is on an operation, come in the afternoon."
In the afternoon, they denied his presence (Prothom Alo, 16 May 2026). Although a general diary (GD) was filed on 23 April, the family claimed the GD was only accepted after four visits to the police station. They were also forced to change their statements in the GD.
The Coast Guard's name could not be mentioned in the GD. The police claimed that abduction or disappearance cannot be written in a GD, and if a case is to be filed, it cannot be against inter-forces personnel (The Dissent, 30 July 2026).
When Miraj Sheikh's family and villagers formed a human chain on 9 June demanding his whereabouts, a confrontation occurred between the Coast Guard and locals. Following this incident, 12 people, including three women from Miraj's family, were arrested. They were released on bail after spending 27 consecutive days in jail (Prothom Alo, 12 June 2026; The Dissent, 30 July 2026).
Recently, two media outlets call the disappearance of Miraj Sheikh into question. Later, it was found that their reports were created while aboard the Coast Guard's boat. The victim's family has also alleged that eyewitness accounts were altered under threat (The Dissent, 29 August 2026). It seems the Coast Guard used the media to promote their narrative.
The actions of abduction in plain clothes, denial of responsibility, harassment of the family, and using media as a shield echo the familiar strategies employed in recent years. When the police were questioned, they repeatedly highlighted Miraj Sheikh's alleged involvement in 'piracy.' Even the Home Minister recently brought up the topic of piracy concerning the Miraj Sheikh incident. He said, "An independent investigation has been conducted, but no evidence of political motives was found." He also suggested that the incident could be a result of internal conflicts between various pirate groups (Jago News, 29 August 2026).
Several questions can be reasonably raised regarding the Home Minister's statement. Firstly, if it is claimed to be an 'independent investigation,' who was involved? Were individuals outside the force included in the investigative committee? If not, can it be considered independent? Or is it deemed 'independent' solely because another force conducted it. Secondly, why is there mention of political motives? Does a disappearance occur only if it is politically motivated? There are numerous instances of human rights violations with non-political intents.
Thirdly, like the police, the Home Minister also brought up the issue of piracy in relation to the Miraj Sheikh incident. But despite having eyewitnesses to the forced abduction, keeping someone from appearing at the station for so long, regardless of their criminal status, is a violation of conventional law. Even if Miraj is a 'criminal,' he has human rights and the right to seek legal recourse – this is simply part of a basic understanding.
Ultimately, this sequence of events circles back to the main question: who will investigate the disappearance allegations? Will the force itself do it?
Notice that even with multiple eyewitnesses to the Coast Guard's abduction of Miraj Sheikh, there is no real resolution. The police claim that a case cannot be taken against inter-forces personnel. Additionally, reluctance in accepting GD is evident. The family was even forced to alter the incident's account in the GD. Thus, when accepting a GD or filing a case becomes entirely dependent on the whims of the law enforcement agencies, discussions of investigation or inquiry remain distant.
Miraj Sheikh's case indicates that law enforcement agencies will not investigate against the inter-forces or may not be capable of doing so. Even if the responsibility for investigation is assigned to another force, there are countless examples where members of one force have used the names of others to conceal their identities during undercover abductions. There are also instances of joint involvement of different forces. Consequently, a conflict of interest inevitably arises.
It is notable that there is a deep crisis of trust among the general public regarding law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh. Especially without fundamental reform in the forces accused of serious allegations like human rights violations and loss of life, regaining that trust is extremely difficult. Thus, for any sensitive incident like disappearances, relying on them for impartial investigations is challenging for the general public.
It has been observed by some experts, including the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, that searching for a disappeared person and conducting a criminal investigation against an offender are not the same. They have said that as soon as a disappearance is reported, an investigation should begin without waiting for a formal complaint or a case (Prothom Alo, 30 August 2026).
The incident of Miraj Sheikh's family facing jail time for protesting brings us face-to-face with a harsh reality. It becomes clear that if the victim's family is socio-economically marginalised, they can become victims of harassment and abuse while raising their voices for justice. Along with the instances of media manipulation, it can be inferred that a scenario of structural silence and denial can be created.
It is necessary to read the ‘Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Remedy Act, 2026’ bill, submitted to the current Parliament, in this context. Essentially, the 2025 anti-disappearance ordinance assigned the responsibility for investigation and inquiries into disappearances to an independent institution like the National Human Rights Commission. However, the system has been rendered ineffective in the proposed law by the new government.
Furthermore, the power that the Human Rights Commission held has also been taken away. In the new proposed law, the investigation of disappearance incidents has been entrusted to another force or inter-forces, and even the Commission's authority to inspect detention sites has been revoked. In effect, the institutional association of anti-disappearance law with the Human Rights Commission has been nullified, rendering both institutions and processes ineffective.
It is noteworthy that many members of parliament and ministers in the current Parliament were victims of disappearance during past regimes, and numerous members of their parties have never returned from disappearance.
Thus, we assume they have the experience and perspective of the brutality of disappearance and the experiences of the victims. Yet, the proposed bill does not reflect that sensitivity and practical experience. The incident of Miraj Sheikh clearly highlights the unresolved question of who will investigate the allegations against the force. Until this question is addressed, institutional handling of disappearances will not be possible.
#Sohul Ahmed is writer and researcher
*The opinions expressed here are the author's own.
#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam