New Bangladesh government’s rights vow tested by disappearance

The “disappearance” of Miraj Sheikh has become more than a missing-person case. It has emerged as the first major test of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) government’s pledge to break decisively with the human rights practices that defined the final years of ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s rule. Before investigators have established what happened, the case has already evolved into a political and institutional reckoning over whether Bangladesh is replacing a culture of impunity with one of accountability, or merely replacing one set of political assurances with another. Miraj Sheikh, a local fisherman, allegedly disappeared under circumstances that his family says point to an enforced disappearance. According to reporting by The Daily Star, his wife, who claims to have witnessed his being grabbed by Coast Guard personnel, has pleaded publicly for answers, saying she simply wants to know where her husband is. The family’s account has resonated because it bears similarities to cases documented during the previous Awami League administration, when rights groups alleged that people were taken by men identifying themselves as members of law enforcement or security agencies before vanishing without official acknowledgment. Those allegations formed the basis of years of criticism by domestic and international human rights organizations. Human Rights Watch has described the Miraj Sheikh case as the “first alleged enforced disappearance since the July-August 2024 uprising” that ended Sheikh Hasina’s government. The organization urged the BNP administration to ensure an immediate, credible and transparent investigation, arguing that the government’s response will determine whether Bangladesh has genuinely broken with past practices or whether enforced disappearances remain a continuing risk under a different political leadership. HRW said the authorities should establish the fate and whereabouts of the missing man, preserve evidence, hold anyone responsible to account and demonstrate that no security institution is beyond civilian oversight. The rights group cautioned against treating the incident as an isolated allegation and argued that Bangladesh’s long record of unresolved disappearances requires institutional safeguards rather than political promises. The case has also entered Bangladesh’s judicial arena. The High Court has directed the government to investigate the alleged disappearance and report its findings, reflecting judicial recognition that the allegations warrant official scrutiny. The court has not concluded that an enforced disappearance occurred. Rather, its intervention underscores the principle that claims involving possible state involvement or state acquiescence require prompt and impartial investigation. The order also places pressure on the government to demonstrate transparency at a time when international attention remains fixed on Bangladesh’s human rights trajectory. BNP’s lack of reform? The BNP government entered office carrying significant expectations. During years in opposition, party leaders repeatedly condemned enforced disappearances allegedly committed under the Awami League government and promised that Bangladesh would restore the rule of law, judicial independence and accountability. Those promises became a central element of the party’s political legitimacy after the July 2024 uprising. Consequently, the significance of the Miraj Sheikh case extends well beyond one family’s search for answers. The investigation has become an early measure of whether the government is willing to subject state institutions to the same scrutiny it once demanded of its predecessor. The debate has been complicated by the government’s evolving position on legal reforms concerning enforced disappearances. Rights advocates had hoped that temporary legal measures adopted after the political transition would be transformed into permanent legislation consistent with international standards. Instead, the government has appeared reluctant to move forward with comprehensive statutory protections. Human rights organizations and legal observers have argued that relying on executive commitments leaves future governments free to reverse policy, while legislation would establish durable legal obligations binding on all administrations regardless of political affiliation. That concern has gained further prominence following reporting by Netra News, which argued that a draft law under consideration weakens rather than strengthens institutional safeguards promised after the political transition. The report contends that proposed provisions could dilute the independence of oversight mechanisms and reduce protections sought by victims’ families. Similarly, an earlier analysis published by Asia Times questioned whether the BNP was retreating from reform commitments that had distinguished it from the previous government. Both publications argue that Bangladesh risks losing a rare opportunity to create durable institutions capable of preventing future abuses rather than merely responding to individual cases after they occur. After the BNP-led parliament allowed the Enforced Disappearance Ordinance to lapse, International Crimes Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Md Aminul Islam defended the move, saying the ordinance was “unnecessary” because enforced disappearance was already covered under the tribunal’s existing law. He said the ICT already had jurisdiction to prosecute such cases, making a separate law or tribunal unnecessary. Lacking legal safeguards Critics, however, contend that democratic systems are built precisely on the assumption that legal safeguards should not depend on the goodwill of those currently exercising power. Human rights organizations have consistently argued that institutions, independent investigations and enforceable laws — not political assurances — provide the strongest protection against abuse. This debate touches a broader question confronting Bangladesh after the dramatic political changes of 2024. The country has spent years attempting to rebuild public confidence in law enforcement and security institutions following repeated allegations of arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearance. The interim administration initiated several reform efforts, including commissions tasked with examining past abuses and recommending institutional changes. Many victims’ families viewed those initiatives as the beginning of a longer process aimed at truth, accountability and guarantees of non-recurrence. Whether those reforms become permanent now depends largely on the policies adopted by the elected government. For the BNP administration, the stakes extend beyond domestic politics. Bangladesh’s international partners have repeatedly emphasized that improvements in governance, judicial independence and human rights will influence the country’s global standing. Organizations such as HRW are likely to judge the government by how consistently it investigates allegations involving state institutions, publishes findings and holds perpetrators accountable where evidence warrants prosecution. A transparent investigation into Miraj Sheikh’s disappearance would therefore carry significance well beyond a single criminal inquiry. At the same time, fairness requires acknowledging that an allegation remains just that until established by evidence. No court has concluded that Miraj Sheikh was subjected to an enforced disappearance or that state agencies were involved. The government’s response to the High Court’s directive, the quality of the investigation and the evidence ultimately produced will determine whether this case becomes proof of continuing abuse or an example of institutions functioning as intended. Faisal Mahmud is a Dhaka-based journalist