Amnesty Writes to Law Minister, Raising Concern Over Three New Laws
Amnesty International has asked the government to drop a proposed cyber law amendment and fix two enacted laws. Its letter to the Law Minister says all three fall short of international human rights standards.
Reading
In a Nutshell:
- Amnesty International wrote to the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister on 26 October. It raised concerns over three recently proposed and enacted laws. • The three laws are the Cyber Protection (Amendment) Act 2026, the Enforced Disappearance Act 2026 and the Special Response Battalion Act 2026. • Amnesty wants the cyber amendment withdrawn. The proposal widens takedown powers, drops the three-day tribunal approval and sets penalties of up to 10 years in prison and a Tk 4 million fine. • On the enforced disappearance law, Amnesty objects to the death penalty, a secrecy clause on national security grounds and trials in absentia. It also objects to a five-year prison term for “false” complaints. • On the Special Response Battalion law, Amnesty says RAB’s personnel, powers and property move to the new force without independent human rights vetting.
Context
Amnesty has written to Dhaka before. On 28 July, it sent a letter to Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, copying the Home and Law Ministers . This new letter follows a September meeting between Amnesty Secretary General Agnès Callamard and the Law Minister at the UN General Assembly. Amnesty welcomed the enforced disappearance law as an important step. It still wants changes to the investigation deadlines, the definition of a victim and the command responsibility rules. RAB has faced credible allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture. The sources do not mention any reply from the government. The Cyber Protection law carries a different name in Prothom Alo, which calls it the Cyber Security (Amendment) Act.
Why it matters
Two of the three laws are already in force, so the damage, if any, is not hypothetical. The proposed cyber amendment is the most direct test for journalists. It gives more agencies power to remove content and removes the quick judicial check. Terms like “disrespect” towards the state and “disinformation” leave wide room for interpretation. In practice, a reporter’s story or a critic’s post could be taken down before any court looks at it. The disappearance law carries a different risk. It is meant to end a long-running abuse, yet a secrecy clause and a penalty for “false” complaints may keep families away from the system. The Special Response Battalion law raises the question of accountability. A renamed force with the same people and wider powers offers little proof of change. All three laws also affect Bangladesh’s image abroad. Rights language in Dhaka’s laws is read closely by partners and rights bodies, and the gap between promise and text gets notice
What we think
Amnesty’s letter landed on the exact same fault line previous reports highlighted: the state writes the rules and then grades its own work. While the disappearance and SRB laws promised change, they still left investigation and oversight trapped inside the very institutions accused of abuse. For newsrooms, the cyber amendment was the sharper threat, because it turned an unverified post into a 10-year crime and weakened the judicial checks on takedowns. The government earned credit for passing a disappearance law at all, but that credit only held if independent investigators and the three-day tribunal check actually stayed in the final texts.