Anti-drug bill lacks focus on kingpins

The draft amendment to the Narcotics Control Act 2018, prepared by the Home Ministry with the stated aim of dismantling drug syndicates affecting the country’s youth, has come under scrutiny for what critics describe as significant structural weaknesses.

The proposal, which is expected to be placed before the Cabinet, emphasises the creation of separate tribunals to expedite trials but does not impose binding measures to bring alleged drug “godfathers”, financiers or syndicate leaders within the scope of prosecution.

Crime analysts and stakeholders familiar with the matter argue that targeting small-scale carriers and retail-level offenders while leaving the principal financiers and political or administrative patrons untouched would render anti-drug efforts ineffective.

They further note that although the draft focuses on faster trials, it does not introduce stronger provisions to enhance the quality of investigations.

The proposed amendment calls for the establishment of special “Narcotics Crime Suppression Tribunals” at district and metropolitan levels. Offences carrying penalties of five years’ imprisonment or more, including life imprisonment and the death penalty, would fall under their jurisdiction.

However, experts argue that the core of the drug trade lies elsewhere. Field-level operations, they say, largely result in the arrest of carriers, retail sellers or users, while those allegedly financing large-scale drug inflows from across borders remain beyond legal reach.

Home Ministry sources said recent discussions on law and order have highlighted growing concerns over drug-related crimes and offences committed under the influence of narcotics.

The government has instructed law enforcement agencies to prioritise anti-drug drives, with the amendment forming part of that broader initiative.

Critics, however, point out that the draft does not define key concepts such as “organised drug crime”, “drug syndicate”, “financier” or “beneficial owner”, leaving what they describe as a critical gap in legal accountability.

Core weaknesses in the draft
According to observers, the draft is largely focused on procedural issues such as tribunal jurisdiction, case transfers and appellate mechanisms.

They argue that it fails to address the need for mandatory financial investigations to trace illicit proceeds or identify those behind large-scale drug consignments.

There are also no provisions requiring strengthened investigative procedures or modernised case-building mechanisms, leading critics to describe the amendment as “an administrative layer over an unchanged system”.

Investigative challenges and backlog of cases
Data from the Department of Narcotics Control (DNC) indicates that more than six lakh drug-related cases are currently pending nationwide.

Officials attribute this backlog primarily to weak investigations, including flawed seizure documentation, improper evidence preservation, delays in chemical analysis reports, and inconsistencies in case preparation.

The shortage of reliable witnesses has further complicated prosecutions. In many instances, informal or transient individuals are listed as witnesses but fail to appear in court. Delays in proceedings also discourage witness participation.

Public Prosecutor of the Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Court, Omar Faruk Faruqi, highlighted systemic weaknesses, saying:
“Most accused in drug cases, after getting bail, never return to court. Our investigations are limited to one line — ‘drugs were found with the accused’.

But what needs to be established is where the drugs came from, who is financing them, and which bank or whose account is receiving the money. Without uprooting the drug godfathers, no legislation will be effective.”

Tribunal approach under scrutiny Home Ministry sources acknowledged that drug-related offences—including murder, rape, theft, mugging and robbery—are reportedly increasing, prompting efforts to expedite case disposal through tribunals.

The Director General of the DNC, Md Hasan Maruf, also noted that prolonged case delays and the inability to trace financial networks of major traffickers remain key challenges, expressing hope that swift tribunal-based justice would send a strong deterrent message.

However, experts caution that accelerating trials alone will not address systemic shortcomings.

They argue that unless investigative weaknesses are corrected and the financial and organisational networks behind narcotics trafficking are legally targeted, new tribunals may only result in increased convictions of low-level offenders, without dismantling the broader drug economy.