Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has said that proposed laws on the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and enforced disappearances still fail to ensure independent, impartial and conflict-free investigations into serious human rights violations.
The anti-graft watchdog said several positive amendments were proposed by the parliamentary standing committee during its review of the National Human Rights Commission Bill, 2026 and the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Bill, 2026.
However, it said fundamental weaknesses remain, particularly regarding the NHRC’s ability to independently investigate allegations against law enforcement agencies on its own initiative.
Against the backdrop of Bangladesh’s experience of prolonged and serious human rights violations, TIB called for meaningful parliamentary discussion on every important provision of the two bills before their passage, with participation from both government and opposition lawmakers.
TIB welcomed several recommendations made by the parliamentary committee on the NHRC bill, including mandatory representation of indigenous or disadvantaged communities, disqualification of loan defaulters from becoming commissioners, and removal of the requirement for prior approval to visit detention centres other than military detention centres.
However, TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman said the proposed law still does not provide sufficient safeguards for an independent commission.
“The absence of a clear provision that the Commission shall not fall under any ministry or division of the government; the scope for a serving government employee to become a commissioner while on deputation, lien or unpaid leave; the risk of unchecked executive influence through the composition of the selection committee; the deputation of up to 30% of the Commission’s total staff from government service; and the failure to guarantee full financial independence together mean that hopes for a genuinely independent Human Rights Commission remain unfulfilled,” he said.
He said the proposed structure could result in a commission being established without ensuring its independence.
“In other words, a commission is being formed, but the hope that it will be independent remains an illusion,” he said.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman also questioned provisions under which the commission would have to seek reports from the relevant force or institution instead of conducting its own investigation into serious human rights violations by disciplinary forces.
He said the proposed arrangement effectively leaves investigative authority in the hands of institutions accused of violations.
TIB also expressed concern that military detention centres have been excluded from the places that the National Preventive Mechanism unit may inspect regularly and without prior notice.
The organisation said the proposed bill has also narrowed several important functions of the commission, including providing legal assistance to aggrieved persons, conducting human rights training, examining the consistency of laws with international human rights instruments, and undertaking other activities necessary to promote and protect human rights.
Enforced disappearance bill
Regarding the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Bill, TIB said the parliamentary committee had not recommended any fundamental change to the core investigative framework.
The organisation described the proposed amendments as largely “cosmetic” in terms of ensuring independent investigations, accountability and victims’ rights.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman said Section 19 of the NHRC bill retains the arrangement under which the commission would seek a report from the concerned force or institution in cases involving serious human rights violations by disciplinary forces.
“By narrowing the Commission’s power of inquiry and investigation and making it dependent on reports, this provision makes it weaker than even the 2009 law and inconsistent with the Paris Principles,” he said.
He said the enforced disappearance bill has a similar weakness.
Although Section 14(3) bars an accused force from investigating its own members, the provision allows responsibility to be assigned to another disciplinary force or an inter-force investigation team.
TIB questioned whether such an arrangement could ensure genuine independence when members of various disciplinary, police, intelligence and security agencies have been accused of involvement in past enforced disappearance cases.
“Is the investigating institution genuinely independent from that same justice-obstructing institutional circle, or is it being asked to investigate itself?” Dr Iftekharuzzaman asked.
He warned that a weak or biased investigation could obstruct justice and deprive victims and their families of recognition, compensation and rights relating to the use and inheritance of property.
TIB also called for a more comprehensive definition of enforced disappearance in line with the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
Dr Iftekharuzzaman said the definition should explicitly cover possible involvement by public representatives, MPs, ministers, advisers and other influential state actors, alongside government employees and members of disciplinary forces.
He also raised concerns over Section 15, saying it was unclear how an accused senior official could be shielded from proceedings based on an interim report prepared by a subordinate investigator without the process being vulnerable to influence.
He said this could create a risk of impunity for accused officials.
TIB further pointed out that Section 16 does not retain safeguards included in the 2025 ordinance requiring searches to continue until a disappeared person is found or their fate is established and requiring families to be regularly informed of progress.
The organisation also said penalties for some offences have been reduced compared with the 2025 ordinance.
While the minimum sentence for enforced disappearance remains three years, the bill provides for a maximum of five years’ rigorous imprisonment for false or harassing accusations.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman warned that such a provision could discourage families from filing complaints if the investigation process itself is vulnerable to conflicts of interest and institutional influence.
“When the investigation mechanism itself carries the risk of conflict of interest and institutional influence, there is a real concern that, for want of adequate evidence, the failure to prove a genuine allegation could instead be blamed on the complainant’s family,” he said.
“Such a provision risks creating a serious culture of fear among victims when it comes to lodging complaints and seeking justice.”
TIB calls for further parliamentary scrutiny
TIB said it had shared its observations on the NHRC law from the drafting stage and, following Cabinet approval, submitted 25 recommendations on the NHRC bill and 17 recommendations on the Enforced Disappearance Prevention Bill.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman said the parliamentary review provided an opportunity to address the fundamental weaknesses in the two bills, but several core concerns raised by stakeholders remain unresolved.
“We expect that, instead of being passed hastily by voice vote, the bills will be amended following meaningful discussion in Parliament on every important provision and proposed amendment, with all members rising above partisan loyalty and guided by their moral and humane values,” he said.
He warned that if the 13th Parliament passes the bills without the necessary amendments to bring them in line with the Paris Principles, ICPPED and other international standards, it would fail to meet public expectations for human rights protection.
The call comes amid broader concerns from rights groups that the proposed framework leaves investigations into enforced disappearance with the police rather than establishing an independent investigative mechanism.
