Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has expressed deep concern that despite several positive amendments proposed by the parliamentary standing committee, the draft laws on human rights and enforced disappearances still contain fundamental deficiencies.
The anti-corruption watchdog claimed that the proposed bills fail to ensure independent, neutral, and conflict-of-interest-free investigations, effectively leaving the authority to investigate grave abuses in the “hands of the accused.”
TIB has urged both the treasury and opposition members of parliament to engage in meaningful discussions on every critical clause before finally passing the National Human Rights Commission Bill, 2026, and the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Bill, 2026.
Elusive independence
TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman acknowledged some positive recommendations by the parliamentary committee, including the mandatory representation of indigenous or underprivileged communities in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the disqualification of loan defaulters from becoming commissioners, and the removal of the requirement for prior permission to visit detention centres other than military ones.
However, Dr Iftekharuzzaman pointed out that the expectation of an independent human rights commission remains elusive.
He highlighted several critical shortcomings, including the absence of a clear provision stating that the commission will not fall under any government ministry or department, and the allowance for serving government employees to become commissioners on deputation, lien, or unpaid leave.
Moreover, there is a risk of absolute executive and ruling party dominance in the search committee, which includes the Speaker, two ministers, a ruling party MP, and the Cabinet Secretary.
Additionally, up to 30 per cent of the commission’s total workforce can be appointed from government employees on deputation, while the NHRC lacks full financial independence over its expenditure and budget allocations.
“The commission is being formed, but the hope of it being independent remains a pipe dream,” Dr Iftekharuzzaman said, adding that the authority to investigate human rights violations virtually remains with the accused.
He expressed concern that “military detention centres” remain excluded from the list of locations subject to regular, unannounced visits by the National Preventive Mechanism Unit.
Moreover, crucial functions of the commission, such as providing legal aid to aggrieved persons or on their behalf, human rights training, reviewing laws for consistency with international human rights treaties, and other development initiatives, have been curtailed in the proposed bill.
‘Weakened investigation systems’
Dr Iftekharuzzaman noted that under Section 19 of the draft NHRC Bill, the commission is barred from directly investigating serious abuses by disciplined forces, and must instead request reports from the accused force or institution.
This reliance on reports makes the provision weaker than the 2009 Act and inconsistent with the Paris Principles.
A similar crisis exists in the draft Enforced Disappearance Bill, where Section 14(3) prevents an accused force from investigating its own members but permits the investigation to be handed over to other disciplined forces or inter-service investigation teams.
“The main question is whether the investigating agency is truly independent of the same justice-obstructing institutional circle, given that there are specific allegations of involvement against members of various disciplined forces, police, intelligence, and security agencies in most past disappearance cases,” Dr Iftekharuzzaman said.
He warned that conflict of interest and institutional influence in weak or motivated investigations would not only obstruct justice but also deprive victims of official recognition as victims of enforced disappearance, compensation, and their families’ property and inheritance rights.
Impunity risks TIB urged that the definition of enforced disappearance be made more comprehensive in alignment with the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPEID).
The definition should explicitly include the potential involvement of public representatives, MPs, ministers, advisers, or other influential state quarters alongside public servants and disciplined forces.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman also raised concerns over Section 15 of the bill, which allows an accused superior officer to be exempted from proceedings based on an interim report by a subordinate investigator.
He questioned how free from influence this process would be, warning it could create a risk of blanket impunity.
Moreover, Section 16 of the draft does not retain the protections of the 2025 Ordinance, which mandated that search operations continue until the victim is found or their fate is confirmed, with regular progress updates provided to the family.
The watchdog pointed out that the proposed punishment for enforced disappearance has been reduced compared to the 2025 Ordinance. While the minimum sentence for the offence is three years, the draft proposes a maximum of five years of rigorous imprisonment for “false or harassing” complaints.
With the investigative framework exposed to conflict of interest and institutional bias, TIB warned that families who fail to prove a genuine complaint due to a lack of adequate evidence might face punishment themselves, creating a severe culture of fear that could deter victims from reporting incidents and seeking justice.
A call to thirteenth parliament
TIB recalled that it had submitted a 25-point recommendation on the NHRC Bill and a 17-point recommendation on the Enforced Disappearance Bill during their drafting and cabinet approval stages.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman added that the parliamentary committee’s review was a vital opportunity to address fundamental weaknesses, but key strategic concerns raised by stakeholders remain unaddressed.
TIB expressed hope that the bills would not be rushed through parliament via voice votes. Instead, it urged all MPs to rise above party loyalty, relying on their moral and human values to amend the bills through meaningful debates.
“If these bills are passed without necessary amendments reflecting the Paris Principles, the ICPPEID, past harrowing experiences, victims’ rights, and stakeholders’ recommendations, the 13th Parliament will stand responsible for failing to meet public expectations in protecting human rights,” Dr Iftekharuzzaman concluded.
