Press Release
Dhaka, 12 August 2026: Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has expressed deep concern that the Cabinet’s in-principle approval of the draft National Human Rights Commission Act, 2026, and the draft Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Act, 2026, ignored the fundamental issues raised in stakeholders’ observations and recommendations. The organization questions with concern whether the government and the ruling party have actually learned any lessons on these fundamental issues from the painful experiences of enforced disappearances, killings, and other brutal and multifaceted human rights violations under the fallen authoritarian regime.
Several positive provisions have been incorporated into the two Cabinet-approved draft Acts. However, provisions that stakeholders had warned would create the greatest obstacles to the Commission’s independent and effective functioning have been retained in the draft National Human Rights Commission Act. Similarly, the approved draft of the 'Enforced Disappearances Prevention and Redress Act' still keeps the provisions that could facilitate impunity for members of agencies accused of involvement in the majority of such crimes during the authoritarian period, disregarding stakeholders’ views. TIB finds this deeply disappointing.
In a statement today, TIB Executive Director Dr. Iftekharuzzaman said, “In most cases, allegations of involvement in human rights violations have been made against agencies defined as law enforcement agencies. Yet, under the Cabinet-approved National Human Rights Commission Act, Section 18 of the 2009 Act has been copied exactly, which means the Commission must rely on reports from the government or the heads of the respective forces in cases of human rights violations by law enforcement agencies. The weaknesses in the 2009 Act hindered the Commission's ability to ensure accountability for and prevent violations of human rights committed by the law enforcement agencies. Likewise, the National Human Rights Commission has never been able to obtain ‘A’ status under international standards. Moreover, the selection committee for appointing the Chairperson and Commissioners includes the Speaker, the Law Minister, the Home Minister, an MP from the ruling party, and the Cabinet Secretary. Of the three other members provided for in the committee, the government would effectively retain control over the nomination of at least two of them, creating a serious risk of ensuring the government’s absolute control and dominance over appointments to the National Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, there is no mandatory provision for having a woman among the Commission’s five members, nor is there any requirement for women’s representation on the selection committee. The process is patriarchal and discriminatory. Similarly, there is no mandatory provision for representation of minorities and other disadvantaged groups on the Commission. Yet, in line with international standards and to ensure pluralistic representation of the social forces engaged in the protection and promotion of human rights, civil society in Bangladesh had demanded that at least two of the Commission’s five members be women and that one member be from a small ethnic group.”
Although the approved draft describes the Commission as independent and impartial, it is unclear whether the institution will be free from government ministry or division oversight. This stipulation is particularly important in light of the long-standing political-bureaucratic culture. On the other hand, the requirement of prior government approval for establishing offices outside Dhaka and determining the necessary organizational structure for appointing officers and employees, the provision allowing up to 30 percent of government employees to be appointed on deputation, and, in particular, the provision allowing serving government employees to be appointed as Commissioners on deputation would effectively turn the Human Rights Commission into a government institution. Is such a Human Rights Commission what the bloody July uprising aspired to? Is it not also completely contrary to the ruling party’s 31-point program and electoral manifesto?” asked Dr. Iftekharuzzaman.
Expressing concern over the removal from the cabinet-approved draft of a provision titled “Excuses for Human Rights Violations Are Unacceptable," which was included in the first draft of the Human Rights Commission Act prepared under the current government, Dr. Iftekharuzzaman said, “Positive provision 14 of the first draft published on the Ministry of Law’s website stated that ‘acting solely on the orders or instructions of a government or superior authority’ could not be accepted as an excuse for human rights violations. This provision has been removed from the approved draft. At the same time, ‘military detention centers' have been excluded from the Commission’s mandate and jurisdiction to regularly inspect, without prior notice, places where there is a risk of deprivation or restriction of personal liberty. Why is that? Should we then assume that the government supports retaining Aynaghar?”
Regarding the approved draft of the Enforced Disappearances Prevention and Redress Act, the TIB Executive Director said, “The responsibility for investigating such a sensitive and ruthless human rights violation as enforced disappearance has been placed entirely with the police, completely outside the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission. Yet the government and bureaucracy are well aware that those accused of involvement in most enforced disappearance cases are themselves members of the disciplined forces.”
“Moreover, where a senior official is accused of involvement in an enforced disappearance, a junior investigating officer is required to prepare and submit an ‘interim report.' At the same time, the provision that, if no satisfactory evidence is found against the senior official on the basis of the junior officer’s report, the competent magistrate may order the senior official to be discharged from the proceedings - how realistic is it to expect such a process to remain free from undue influence? Will this provision actually help prevent and redress enforced disappearances, or will it effectively ensure impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance?”
The approved draft does not include the involvement of elected representatives, ministers, or other important state officials in its definition of enforced disappearance. In other words, the definition of enforced disappearance has not been formulated in accordance with Bangladesh’s actual experience and the relevant international conventions. Moreover, the Enforced Disappearances Prevention and Redress Ordinance, 2025, enacted during the interim government, included provisions under the functions of the Human Rights Commission concerning monitoring compliance with safeguards relating to detention; conducting on-site inspections of prisons, lock-ups, detention centers, and any other places and facilities; inspecting any premises for the purpose of identifying secret detention centers; and taking lawful measures. Such important functions have not been incorporated into the Cabinet-approved draft.
A significant portion of the people of Bangladesh, including members of the ruling and opposition parties, have been victims of the horrific situation created by the absence of an independent and effective Human Rights Commission and the lack of any legal safeguards against enforced disappearances. Therefore, TIB strongly demands that, before the two draft laws are placed before Parliament for passage, they be revised again to reflect the views of victims and stakeholders, and to align with the aspirations for state reform based on human rights, accountability, and justice embodied in the spirit of the July uprising, as well as the ruling party’s 31-point and electoral commitments.
Media Contact:
Mohammad Tauhidul Islam
Director, Outreach and Communication
Phone: +8801713107868
Email: tauhidul@ti-bangladesh.org
