An Anti-Disappearance Law With a Very Official Escape Route
Parliament passed sweeping new laws on enforced disappearance and human rights on Sunday, complete with the death penalty for perpetrators. Jamaat-backed opposition lawmakers walked out anyway, calling the protections a "dual" system that favours the state.
In a Nutshell
- Parliament passed the National Human Rights Commission Bill (NHRC), 2026 and the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Bill, 2026, by voice vote on Sunday, alongside a separate property law.
- Opposition Leader Dr Shafiqur Rahman and Jamaat-led opposition MPs walked out just before these two bills were voted on, though they stayed to support the earlier Transfer of Property Bill.
- Rahman argued the human rights law applies unevenly: the Commission can investigate ordinary citizens directly, but must first ask an accused security force to report on itself.
- The Speaker responded to the walkout by simply saying, "Thank you for walking out," before proceeding with the vote.
- The enforced disappearance law introduces the death penalty or life imprisonment where a victim dies or stays missing for over five years, alongside a 120-day deadline to finish the investigation and trial.
Context
Bangladesh has struggled for years with unresolved enforced disappearance cases, many allegedly involving state security forces. An interim government had issued temporary ordinances on both issues in 2025, which lapsed this year. Sunday's bills replace those ordinances with permanent law, adding harsher penalties, a formal complaints process, and a new National Human Rights Commission structure, while keeping investigation of security forces largely inside the security apparatus itself.
Why It Matters
The new laws bring real upgrades: death penalty provisions, court-ordered search warrants, digital evidence, victim compensation funds, and strict 120-day case deadlines are meaningful steps that didn't exist before. But the opposition's walkout signals that the core trust problem, who investigates the state when the state itself is accused, remains unresolved on paper.
Under the passed law, if a security force is accused, the Human Rights Commission cannot investigate directly; it must ask that same force for a report, and if unsatisfied, can only issue a non-binding recommendation with a 45-day response window. Similarly, the Enforced Disappearance Bill bars an accused force from investigating itself and instead hands the case to another force chosen by the government, rather than to an independent body.
The structural gap could shape whether victims' families and international rights observers see these laws as genuine reform or as another procedural shield.
We Asked Dr Nabila
Do the new laws ensure independent investigations when security forces are accused? What happens if an implicated force fails to submit a report to the National Human Rights Commission? And are these laws stronger than the 2025 interim-government ordinances?
“One bill contradicts the other. Section 14(3) of the enforced disappearance law says that an accused force cannot investigate a case, but Section 19(1) of the National Human Rights Commission law says the Commission must first seek a report from the relevant force,” she said.
“If the force does not respond, the Commission can do nothing. It is an immediate deadlock,” she said.
“In the interim government’s document, was there a provision for independent investigation? The answer is yes. In the current document… is there an opportunity for independent investigation? The answer is no,” she said, adding: “The facts speak for themselves.”
“What is the bottom line? The government has essentially created a complicated web of legal intricacies whose sole purpose is an unfortunate eye-wash,” Idris said. “Everything depends on the investigation. The government has said the law provides severe punishments, victim protection measures and compensation mechanisms. But all of these depend on an investigation certifying that the family is indeed a victim in the first place.”
Referring to Miraj Shek’s family, she said: “Are they victims right now, or are they not victims? If the government and law enforcement forces do not officially acknowledge them as victims, then all the punishments and investigative mechanisms the government is boasting about simply do not kick in.”
She added that this was harmful “not merely from a justice perspective, but simply from a human perspective,” because families may not even be officially recognised as victims.
We Asked Barrister Arman, MP
Do the newly passed laws hold security forces accountable for alleged abuses? Do they adequately protect victims and witnesses who come forward? And what changes are needed to ensure an independent and effective investigation process?
“The laws would shield the security forces rather than hold them to account.”
“By requiring a force to investigate complaints against its own members, and by handing enforced disappearance cases to the ordinary police, these laws institutionalise impunity for the very crimes they claim to address,” he said.
He said the laws put Bangladesh “in breach of its obligations under the UN Convention against Enforced Disappearance,” which he said Bangladesh had ratified with a commitment to ensure independent and effective investigations.
“Worst of all, a victim who comes forward but cannot prove their case against a force that controls the evidence is left exposed to retaliation, with no protection,” he said.
Describing himself as a survivor of eight years of enforced disappearance, Arman added: “These laws would not have found me, and they will not find the next victim.”
He called for restoring the 2025 ordinances, saying they had been endorsed by the UN and had given the Commission independent investigators.
“Every safeguard this Parliament has just deleted can be brought back by amendment,” he said.
What We Think
The real question isn't whether these laws are good; it's whether families will get fair answers. We can credit the government for passing real legislation while still demanding the one fix that would make it work: independent investigation of security forces.