Why Bangladesh Needs a Dedicated Enforced Disappearance Law

The disappearance of Miraj Sheikh marks the first documented case of an enforced disappearance in Bangladesh since the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) assumed power following the February 2026 elections.

Miraj Sheikh, a fisherman with no known political association, was reportedly detained and taken away on April 10, 2026, by members of the Coast Guard in Bagerhat, a coastal district in southern Bangladesh. His fate and whereabouts remain unknown to date, despite the extensive efforts of his family and lawyers to locate him.

The involvement of the Coast Guard in his disappearance is further indicated by the fact that the following day, an official who identified himself as a Coast Guard member allegedly came to the tea shop where Miraj Sheikh had left his motorbike, unlocked the motorbike with its keys, and drove it away.

The disappearance of Miraj Sheikh demonstrates that enforced disappearance is part of a broader architecture of impunity in Bangladesh that the current BNP-led government is in danger of perpetuating unless it takes action to implement laws, policies, and practices that prevent enforced disappearances.

Enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions did not start under the previous regime of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, although they did rise to much higher levels during her rule.

The historical record shows that such abuses by the security forces, committed with almost complete impunity, date back to the very independence of Bangladesh and have been committed under every subsequent government, including the BNP. For the cycle of enforced disappearances to end, Bangladesh requires fundamental security reforms, including a dedicated enforced disappearances law.

The BNP's position is paradoxical. Before taking office, the BNP supported the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances established by the interim government, which has documented more than 1,800 cases and acknowledged that enforced disappearances were "orchestrated by a central command structure" during the previous regime of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Even so, the government hasn't moved to put a permanent legal framework in place. The BNP-led parliament let the Enforced Disappearance Ordinance 2025 lapse.

Defending that decision, Law Minister Md. Asaduzzaman told Parliament on April 6, 2026, that the ordinance was "flawed" and would be replaced by stronger legislation.

During the same parliamentary debate, Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem, a Jamaat member of Parliament, part of the opposition, and survivor of enforced disappearance, strongly opposed allowing the ordinance to lapse, arguing that victims deserved the protections of a dedicated law.

The following day, International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) Chief Prosecutor Md. Aminul Islam argued that there was no "necessity to form another law and tribunal where the jurisdiction to try allegations of enforced disappearance already existed under this [ICT] Act," concluding that the Enforced Disappearance Ordinance was "an unnecessary law."

The ICT Chief Prosecutor’s position misunderstands the scope of international criminal law. The ICT Act, which establishes Bangladesh's ICT to prosecute serious international crimes, was designed to address systematic crimes rather than criminal offences.

An enforced disappearance can be prosecuted under the ICT Act only when it forms part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Standalone cases of enforced disappearance committed by state officials fall outside this framework.

A specialized enforced disappearance law is not redundant; it complements the ICT Act by ensuring that every disappearance can be investigated and prosecuted. That is why Parliament should enact the Enforced Disappearance Ordinance into law.

First, any new law must ensure that authorities investigate every case of enforced disappearance. Investigators should immediately start searching for the missing person and preserve evidence. The law should also make it a crime to conceal a person's whereabouts, destroy evidence, harass witnesses, or obstruct an investigation in any way.

Second, the draft Enforced Disappearance Ordinance, which has now lapsed, would have empowered the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh to conduct independent investigations into disappearances, building on the work of the interim government's Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances.

Third, any future law should establish a robust, victim-centred reparations programme, as survivors, victims' families, and civil society organisations in Bangladesh have consistently advocated. Furthermore, the government should establish a dedicated reparations fund for survivors and their families.

The draft Enforced Disappearance Ordinance was not perfect. Any future law should not allow the death penalty as a punishment for enforced disappearance. Nevertheless,the urgent need for these reforms is already evident.

Miraj Sheikh's father, Mostafa Sheikh, reportedly filed a petition to the High Court. On July 12, the High Court ordered law enforcement agencies to produce him and establish his whereabouts. If the authorities fail to comply, the High Court has indicated that Coast Guard personnel should face investigation.

A dedicated enforced disappearance law matters. It would help deliver justice for past abuses and make sure enforced disappearance can never again be used as a tool of repression in Bangladesh.

John Quinley is a director at Fortify Rights. Fortify Rights, an award-winning human rights organization. Follow him on X: @john_hq3.