Date: 25 May 2026

Sapran expresses deep concern regarding the current trajectory of the recently published drafts of the National Human Rights Commission Act, 2026, and the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Remedy Act, 2026. We welcome the initiative to bring critically important human rights issues under formal legal frameworks. However, a detailed review of both drafts suggests that several of the stronger and more independent mechanisms that had previously been anticipated during discussions around reform initiatives and ordinances have now been constrained or diluted. We believe that laws should not be designed solely with current political circumstances in mind; rather, they should serve as strong, long-term safeguards. Independent legislation not only protects ordinary citizens from potential abuses of state power but can also provide a legal shield for today’s political actors when future shifts in political power inevitably occur. Therefore, before finalizing these bills, we urge the government to address the bureaucratic complexities and loopholes embedded within them.

Several limitations are evident in the proposed National Human Rights Commission Act, 2026, regarding both the structure and authority of the Commission. For instance, Section 20 of the draft indicates that if allegations of human rights violations are brought against the police or other disciplined forces, the Commission would not independently conduct investigations itself but instead seek reports from the head of the respective force or the government. Such a mechanism significantly limits the Commission’s ability to function independently. Furthermore, under Section 7 of the draft, the proposed selection committee responsible for appointing Commission members is predominantly composed of executive branch officials, including ministers and secretaries. Previous reform discussions and ordinances had envisioned a far more inclusive process, emphasizing representation from multiple stakeholders and strongly advocating for an Appellate Division judge of the Supreme Court to serve as Chairperson of the Commission. However, the current draft lacks effective judicial leadership and a politically insulated, independent, and broadly representative appointment process. As a result, the Commission risks becoming heavily dependent on the preferences of the ruling political authority, raising serious concerns regarding its impartiality.

Additionally, Section 16(3) of the draft proposes that if an investigation officer negligently delays or stalls investigations related to human rights violations, the only sanction would be a negative remark in their Annual Confidential Report (ACR). In cases involving grave violations such as enforced disappearance or torture, such a measure appears highly inadequate and is unlikely to serve as an effective deterrent against negligence.

Similarly, the proposed Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Remedy Act, 2026, also requires several important revisions. Although Section 14(6) explicitly states that prior government approval is not necessary for taking cognizance of offences, the institutional procedures required to initiate investigations and submit reports against serving officials remain complex and burdensome. Such procedural hurdles may slow down access to timely justice. Furthermore, while Sections 10 and 11 introduce the concept of “command responsibility” for senior officials within disciplined forces and other institutions, the legal mechanisms for establishing such responsibility remain highly complex. Consequently, individuals who orchestrate crimes through subordinates or knowingly tolerate such actions while remaining behind the scenes may still evade direct legal accountability.

Another major concern relates to Sections 4 and 33 of the draft, which artificially separate enforced disappearances committed in a “widespread or systematic manner” from other forms of enforced disappearance. This distinction appears inconsistent with the broader spirit and principles of the international convention aimed at protecting all persons from enforced disappearance.

We urge the drafters and advisors involved in these legislative processes not to rush the passage of these bills while preserving such limitations. Doing so would not only undermine the longstanding expectations of victims’ families and the broader human rights movement in Bangladesh, but also weaken the foundations of our legal protection systems. We therefore call for a temporary suspension of the legislative process and encourage meaningful, open consultations involving the general public, legal experts, and representatives of civil society.

We must remember that strong legislation does not merely respond to present crises; it creates lasting guarantees for the rights and protections of all individuals, regardless of political affiliation. At this moment, Bangladesh requires a Human Rights Commission and an Enforced Disappearance Prevention framework that are fully independent, self-sufficient, and empowered by their own authority. Only a neutral and robust legal framework can become a lasting, reliable, and resilient safeguard against any misuse of state power—for ordinary citizens, human rights defenders, and future political leadership alike.

Quick Links

Contact Us

Deep Concern over the Structural Erosion and Weakening of the Proposed National Human Rights Commission Act and Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Remedy Act, 2026

More News

Roundtable Discussion on Police Reform in Bangladesh: Challenges, Possibilities, and Future Pathways

Demanding Police Reform and Condemning Unwarranted Use of Force and Harassment Against Citizens

Roundtable Discussion on Police Reform in Bangladesh: Challenges, Possibilities, and Future Pathways

Demanding Police Reform and Condemning Unwarranted Use of Force and Harassment Against Citizens