HRW report and its context problem
Two years after former leader Sheikh Hasina fled the country, hundreds of her party's members are stuck in jail without formal charges, with some dying before reaching a courtroom. The methods being used look almost identical to the crackdowns carried out by the previous government just a few years ago.
In a Nutshell
- According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), thousands of Awami League members and supporters have been held in jail without trials since Hasina was ousted in August 2024, and at least 10 have died in prison since Prime Minister Tarique Rahman took office in February 2026.
- Former Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque (82) was arrested in July 2025 and faced five separate cases. Every time a court granted him bail, police filed a new case to keep him behind bars until he was finally released in August 2026.
- Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal has refused bail for every single one of the 160-plus detainees it holds, including former advisor Dr. Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury (81), who has been kept for 22 months without formal charges.
- Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal has refused bail for every single one of the 160-plus detainees it holds, including former advisor Dr. Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury (81), who has been kept for 22 months without formal charges.
- Former lawmaker Ramesh Chandra Sen (85) died in custody in February 2026, and party member SM Ziaul Haque Zia (65) died in April 2026; both passed away after being denied bail and proper healthcare.
- Human Rights Watch notes that these actions—mass arrests, blocking bail, and using vague police reports with unnamed suspects—mirror the abuses of the old regime, only with a different political party as the target.
Context
The report places current detentions in the aftermath of Bangladesh’s 2024 political rupture, when the Hasina government fell following weeks of protest. It also recognizes that some former officials and security personnel face serious allegations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, disappearances, and corruption. Its central distinction is between pursuing credible, evidence-based accountability for alleged abuses and using prolonged, charge-free detention or repeated cases as a substitute for due process.
Why it matters
The allegations test whether Bangladesh’s post-Hasina transition can establish a rule-of-law break from the politically influenced justice practices long criticised under successive governments. Prolonged detention without charge may weaken domestic confidence in judicial reform, complicate accountability for alleged past abuses, and expose the government to sustained international human-rights scrutiny. It also risks turning legitimate transitional-justice efforts into a cycle of political retaliation, thereby deepening polarisation and narrowing prospects for durable democratic legitimacy.
What we think about it
Bangladesh has a chance to promptly review every extended pretrial detention, publish clear grounds where exceptional detention is sought, guarantee access to counsel, bail hearings and independent medical treatment, and investigate all custodial deaths since the country has come to a democratic space after 17 years. The government also faces an institutional choice: a National Human Rights Commission unable to investigate arbitrary arrests would undermine its reform credentials.
International rights groups’ Bangladesh detention reports show a context gap. The underlying facts, bail denials, custodial deaths, stand. But ignoring the 17-year cycle of weaponized institutions and its leaders risk flattening accountability into one-sided persecution narratives.