How criminal justice was systematically weaponised to suppress dissent
In its second interim report, the inquiry commission said the justice system was repurposed to serve political ends, moving away from its core duty of upholding rights and ensuring due process. Instead, it has become "a tool to legitimise repression and criminalise opposition"
Commission finds:
- Justice system weaponised to suppress dissent
- Forced confessions obtained through torture
- Victims threatened with death or harm
- Magistrates failed to verify voluntary confessions
- Uniform charges suggest systemic repression
- Confessions based on pre-written scripts
The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances has raised serious concerns over the state of Bangladesh's criminal justice system, saying the fallen Sheikh Hasina government has systematically weaponised it to suppress dissent.
In its second interim report, the Commission said the justice system was repurposed to serve political ends, moving away from its core duty of upholding rights and ensuring due process. Instead, it has become "a tool to legitimise repression and criminalise opposition".
The report details a wide range of coercive practices, particularly the use of forced confessions obtained through threats, torture, and rehearsed scripts.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Weaponised criminal justice system
The Commission said Bangladesh's criminal justice system—particularly its courts and prosecutorial mechanisms—has been systematically weaponised to silence dissent and shield state actors from accountability.
Through analysis of case patterns, legal distortions, and institutional incentives, it concluded that the system has shifted from protecting rights to serving political objectives.
Coerced statements
Across numerous testimonies from different districts, years, and agencies, the Commission identified a disturbingly consistent pattern of extracting confessional statements from victims of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention. The uniformity of these accounts suggests a coordinated method of coercing alleged self-incriminating statements, in violation of procedure and aided by institutional complicity.
Threats and coercion as standard practice
Victims were repeatedly told that unless they signed Section 164 confessional statements and repeated the dictated words before a magistrate, they would face severe consequences.
Many described threats of death, extended disappearance, harm to family members, and repeated torture during custody by various security forces. In some cases, they were warned that non-compliance would result in fabricated charges of even greater severity.
Pre-coached statements and rehearsed formats
Victims, held in secret detention centres over the years, reported being forced to memorise scripts written by law enforcement officers. These scripts were rehearsed under duress and later presented before magistrates as though they were voluntary confessions.
Absence of legal representation
Many of those forced to make confessions were brought before magistrates without legal counsel. The Commission noted that access to legal representation at this stage—if permitted—might have prevented the use of coerced confessions, or at least allowed for challenges to be raised.
Judicial complicity or inaction
Several testimonies indicated that magistrates failed to verify whether the confessions were made voluntarily. Victims were often presented before the very officers who had tortured them, with no chance to speak freely. In many cases, magistrates appeared disinterested or hurried, approving the confessions without proper inquiry. Some victims reported that the statements recorded bore no resemblance to what they had said, indicating not just coercion but outright fabrication.
