Enforced Disappearance Act, 2026 draft: One day’s notice a mockery, TIB says

Terming the government’s move of allowing stakeholders one day to submit their views on the Prevention and Remedy of Enforced Disappearance Act, 2026 draft  as a mockery, Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) on Wednesday said there had already been many instances of bills being introduced hurried in violation of parliamentary rules.

The draft act was uploaded on the home ministry’s website on July 27 and all views were required by the deadline of July 28, the TIB said.

In a statement, it said TIB fears that a similar abuse of the power of an absolute majority could take place in the case of the draft law under consideration. 

It strongly called for “ensuring effective engagement of victims of enforced disappearance and other relevant stakeholders, extending the deadline for submitting views by at least two weeks, and comprehensively revising the draft through an inclusive process based on the recommendations received.”

TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman said, “The draft law includes several positive provisions, such as recognising enforced disappearance as a distinct criminal and continuing offence; holding senior officials and those who issue orders accountable; and declaring state security or other similar grounds unacceptable as justification for enforced disappearance, among others. 

“However, allowing only one day for stakeholders to submit their views on such an important national law demonstrates a lack of government goodwill in seeking the views of victims and relevant stakeholders.” 

He also pointed out recent instances of violating the Rules of Procedure of Parliament in passing several important laws, which have raised concerns that “a similar practice of abusing the power of an absolute majority is being imposed in the case of this draft law as well.”

Under the proposed draft, responsibility for investigating enforced disappearance cases has been assigned to the police instead of the National Human Rights Commission. 

Questioning whether the police can conduct impartial and independent investigations into such sensitive cases, Dr Iftekharuzzaman said, “There are specific allegations that members of the police and other law enforcement agencies were involved in many of the enforced disappearances that occurred in the past."

He said the ordinance issued during the interim government assigned responsibility for investigating enforced disappearance cases to the National Human Rights Commission.

"How, then, could such a provision be included under a government that came to power with a strong public mandate, especially when many of its prominent leaders and activists, as well as ordinary citizens, have direct experience of enforced disappearance and killings by law enforcement agencies during the previous authoritarian regime?”

He added: “Are we then to assume that the political and bureaucratic establishment currently in power has learned nothing from the authoritarian era?”  

Referring to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the draft law, Dr Iftekharuzzaman said, “Given the existing realities, is it actually possible for a subordinate investigating officer to prepare and submit an ‘interim report’ against a superior officer? At the same time, the provision allowing a competent magistrate to order the discharge of a senior official from proceedings if no satisfactory evidence is found against that person based on the subordinate officer’s report could mean that the proposed law will bring no meaningful positive change.” 

He said this would effectively create a legal avenue for perpetuating authoritarian practices and, in practice, ensuring protection for those accused. 

“Moreover, if such provisions are retained, it would effectively allow the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law to maintain control over cases of enforced disappearance, thereby establishing the government’s narrative regarding such incidents as the official account.”