Play store
Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has sharply criticized the government’s decision to allow only a single day for public and stakeholder feedback on the proposed “Prevention and Remedy of Enforced Disappearance Act, 2026.”
The draft legislation was published on the Ministry of Home Affairs website on July 27, with the deadline for feedback set for July 28. In a formal statement issued on July 29, 2026, the anti-corruption watchdog described the compressed timeframe as a “mockery” of meaningful public consultation.
Expressing concern over recent legislative rushes—such as the passage of the Invest Bangladesh Act, 2026—TIB warned that the absolute parliamentary majority could be used to bypass thorough debate, violating established procedures. The organization demanded that the submission deadline be extended by at least two weeks to allow victims, human rights advocates, and legal experts to review the bill thoroughly.
Key concerns raised by TIB are: Superficial Consultation Window: TIB Executive Director Dr. Iftekharuzzaman highlighted that granting barely 24 hours for review signals a lack of genuine intent to incorporate feedback from victims and civil society.
Police-Led Investigations: The proposed draft transfers investigative authority over forced disappearances to the police rather than the National Human Rights Commission—a move Dr. Iftekharuzzaman questioned, noting historical allegations of law enforcement involvement in past disappearance cases.
Loopholes Protecting Senior Officials: Section 15 of the draft allows subordinate officers to submit “interim reports” on superiors, enabling magistrates to discharge senior figures if evidence is deemed insufficient. TIB warned this structure could perpetuate protection for high-ranking perpetrators.
Executive Control: Retaining these administrative provisions risks leaving control over disappearance investigations with the Home and Law Ministries, potentially cementing official government narratives over independent findings.
While acknowledging positive aspects of the draft—such as explicitly defining enforced disappearance as a distinct, continuing crime and rejecting “state security” as a valid defense—TIB urged the government to revise the bill based on international human rights standards.
Dr. Iftekharuzzaman noted that members across both ruling and opposition parties were victims of enforced disappearances under previous authoritarian rule. He called on lawmakers to ensure the final legislation reflects authentic parliamentary scrutiny rather than rushed administrative approval.