Never again: Why law enforcement reform is central to preventing enforced disappearances

The final report of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances has renewed debate over how institutional design, secrecy, and politicisation of Bangladesh's law enforcement and intelligence agencies allowed enforced disappearances to persist for over a decade. 

While the report documents individual cases and patterns of abuse, rights advocates and former officials argue that preventing recurrence will depend less on individual prosecutions and more on structural reform.

The commission's findings indicate that enforced disappearances were not isolated acts by rogue officers. They were part of a system in which multiple agencies operated with overlapping mandates, limited oversight and political direction. 

According to the report, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), police units, and intelligence agencies such as the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and National Security Intelligence (NSI) were repeatedly implicated in abductions, secret detention, custodial torture, and extrajudicial killings.

Nur Khan Liton, a human rights activist who served as a member of the commission, said that the report was designed to create deterrence rather than offer immediate closure. 

"The way we have produced the report, we hope that if such incidents are even contemplated in the future, those involved will think at least a hundred times before carrying them out," he told TBS. 

"This report sends a strong and difficult message to those who perpetrate such crimes. It will undoubtedly create pressure on the government. There is pressure embedded in this process," Nur Khan added. 

The commission documented 251 cases in detail, while noting that the verified number of disappearances nationwide is far higher. Independent estimates cited in the report suggest that the total number may exceed 1,500, with patterns intensifying around election periods. 

Most victims were affiliated with opposition political parties, reinforcing the commission's conclusion that enforced disappearance functioned as a political tool rather than a counterterrorism necessity.

A central problem identified by the inquiry is the structural secrecy embedded into the operations of Bangladesh's law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 

Human rights researcher Rezaur Rahman Lenin argues that this secrecy is not accidental but institutionalised. 

"All of these institutions are structured and designed in such a way that they can operate in secrecy," he said, adding that this design allowed abuses to remain hidden for years.

The commission itself noted that oversight mechanisms were either weak or non-functional. Courts remain the only formal avenue for redress, yet Bangladesh's judiciary is burdened with more than 4.5 million pending cases, limiting its ability to act as an effective safeguard against abuse. In practice, this meant that victims' families often had no realistic path to accountability.

One of the commission's most debated recommendations is the disbandment of RAB, an elite force established in 2004 to combat violent crime and terrorism. The report states that RAB became "notorious for violating rights, torturing citizens, running secret detention centres, and destroying evidence". Investigators found that many detention sites, including the infamous "Aynaghar," were dismantled or altered before they could be fully examined.

At the same time, the commission acknowledged that Bangladesh requires specialised law enforcement capacity. Its chair publicly stated that while RAB was created out of necessity, any future rapid-response force must operate under "stringent checks and balances" to prevent a repeat of past abuses.

However, former Inspector General of Police Nurul Huda urged caution in implementing sweeping reforms. 

While acknowledging the seriousness of the findings, he warned that abrupt dismantling of long-standing institutions could destabilise public order. "Suddenly disbanding or restructuring a force established over decades would create challenges for law and order," he said, emphasising that Bangladesh's current policing environment remains fragile.

"The way we have produced the report, we hope that if such incidents are even contemplated in the future, those involved will think at least a hundred times before carrying them out… It will undoubtedly create pressure on the government. There is pressure embedded in this process."

Nur Khan Liton, member, Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances

Huda also addressed proposed changes to the Anti-Terrorism Act, another area flagged by the commission. The report recommends either fundamental amendments or repeal, citing repeated misuse of the law to justify prolonged detention without due process. 

Nurul Huda argues that the law itself is not the core problem. "It is essential to understand why the law was created and to ensure its proper implementation," he said, stressing the need for oversight rather than unchecked powers.

Beyond RAB, the commission highlighted the role of intelligence agencies in political interference. It documented how DGFI and NSI allegedly participated in media takeovers, bank seizures and surveillance of political opponents under previous administrations. 

The report recommends withdrawing armed forces personnel from civilian law enforcement and intelligence duties, arguing that military deputation blurred accountability lines and shielded officers from civilian disciplinary mechanisms.

Lenin described the failure to establish a Military Reform Commission as a missed opportunity to unfold the truth. Such a body, he argued, could have clarified chains of command and responsibility. "To date, these issues have not been properly identified," he said, referring to perpetrators and command structures behind enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and so on. 

"The future of Bangladesh's law enforcement reform must concentrate on creating a professional, accountable, and people-centric law enforcement force through a comprehensive overhaul, emphasizing independent oversight, technological integration, gender-sensitive training, community policing, and ending political influence, aiming to rebuild public trust, enhance human rights protection, and improve responsiveness to diverse community needs for a truly democratic and rights-based service," he added. 

The commission also proposed non-judicial mechanisms to address long-term accountability, including converting former detention centres into public memorials and museums. According to the report, these spaces could serve as tools for continuous truth revelation and institutional memory, particularly in the absence of swift prosecutions.

International experience cited in the report shows mixed outcomes. In some countries, enforced disappearances declined sharply following democratic transitions and security sector reform; in others, abuses persisted due to incomplete institutional change. Nurul Huda pointed to these examples, noting that "clear limitations on the powers of officials at different levels" are essential if reforms are to be effective.  

Ultimately, the inquiry underscores that preventing enforced disappearances is inseparable from restoring democratic accountability. As Nur Khan Liton observed, the durability of reform depends on political context. "If we fail to return to democracy, then these conditions may continue, or at the very least, the risk will remain," he said.

For now, the commission's report provides a detailed institutional diagnosis. Whether its recommendations translate into durable reform will depend on political will, legal restructuring, and the capacity of the state to bring law enforcement agencies under effective civilian oversight — an outcome the report makes clear is still far from guaranteed.