Amnesty flags rights risks in three BD laws

Amnesty International has warned that three laws enacted or amended in Bangladesh in 2026 could undermine human rights protections, raising concerns over restrictions on online speech, safeguards for victims of enforced disappearance and the accountability of a new security force replacing the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB).

In a letter sent to the law minister on October 26, the international rights organisation called for the Cyber Security (Amendment) Act 2026, the Prevention and Redress of Enforced Disappearances Act 2026 and the Special Response Battalion (SRB) Act 2026 to be brought into

line with international human rights law.
The letter followed a meeting between Amnesty International’s secretary general and the minister on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The organisation welcomed some steps towards addressing human rights concerns, particularly the introduction of legislation on enforced disappearances.

However, it argued that gaps in the three laws could leave journalists, government critics, families of missing people and others vulnerable to rights violations.

Its concerns centre on three issues: the potential use of cyber legislation to restrict freedom of expression, provisions that could weaken protections for victims of enforced disappearance, and the transfer of RAB personnel and powers to a new force without adequate accountability safeguards.

Cyber law: broad offences could silence critics
Amnesty International has warned that the proposed amendments to the Cyber Security Act could reproduce and potentially deepen problems associated with earlier digital and cyber laws.

The organisation cited the Information and Communication Technology Act 2006, the Digital Security Act 2018 and the Cyber Security Act 2023, saying such legislation has previously been used in ways that infringed human rights, including freedom of expression.

It argued that the proposed amendments fail to adequately address those concerns and could expose journalists, human rights defenders, political opponents and government critics to further harassment.

One major concern is the expansion of offences covering defamation, insult, harassment, misinformation and rumours. Amnesty said vague and overly broad definitions could give authorities excessive discretion to determine what constitutes a punishable offence.

The organisation also raised concerns over Section 8(2), which would expand the range of entities authorised to order the removal of online content or the suspension of its publication.

Under the proposed provisions, content could be removed or restricted on grounds including national security, public order, religious or communal hatred, incitement to disorder or criminal activity, defamation of individuals or institutions, and expressions deemed disrespectful towards the state.

Amnesty argued that the lack of sufficiently precise definitions could allow these provisions to be used against legitimate expression.

It also objected to a proposed change removing the requirement for tribunal approval within three days of an order to remove content or stop its publication.

The change, it warned, could weaken judicial oversight of restrictions on online speech.

With the proposed amendments providing for penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines of Tk40 lakh, Amnesty has called for the amendments to be withdrawn.

The concerns carry particular significance for journalists and rights defenders, whose work often involves scrutinising public officials, investigating allegations of wrongdoing and reporting on politically sensitive issues.

Broadly worded offences and expanded content-removal powers could create uncertainty over the limits of lawful expression.

Enforced disappearance law: gaps in victim protection
Amnesty International welcomed the Prevention and Redress of Enforced Disappearances Act 2026 but said several provisions fall short of international standards, including those under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

The organisation has called for a revision of the legal definition of a victim of enforced disappearance.

It objected to a requirement that the same government official must carry out the detention and subsequently deny that the detention occurred or conceal the person’s fate or whereabouts.

Amnesty argued that such a narrow definition could leave some victims outside the law’s protection.

The organisation also raised concerns about a provision allowing an arrest to be concealed on national security grounds, even when the detainee is produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

It argued that such a provision could weaken safeguards against enforced disappearance by allowing authorities to withhold information about a person’s detention under certain circumstances.

Another major objection concerns Section 6, which provides for the death penalty. Amnesty called for a moratorium on its use, followed by its complete abolition.

The organisation also questioned Section 18, which permits trials in absentia, warning that such proceedings could undermine fair-trial guarantees except in narrowly defined circumstances.

Section 21 has drawn further criticism. It allows compensation or imprisonment of up to five years for filing false or harassing complaints relating to enforced disappearances.

Amnesty warned that the provision could discourage victims’ families from reporting disappearances or pursuing complaints, particularly when they already face difficulties obtaining information about missing relatives.

The concern is that a provision intended to prevent abuse of the legal process could also deter legitimate complaints if the terms are not sufficiently clear and safeguards are inadequate.

For families seeking information about missing relatives, the effectiveness of the law will depend not only on criminal penalties but also on whether complaints can be filed safely, investigations proceed independently and authorities are required to disclose the fate and whereabouts of victims.

New security force, old accountability concerns?
Amnesty International’s third major concern is the creation of the Special Response Battalion to replace RAB.

The organisation said the change in the force’s name does not, by itself, resolve longstanding concerns over alleged human rights violations.

RAB has faced credible allegations of serious abuses, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture.

Amnesty argued that transferring the former force’s personnel, powers and assets to the SRB without adequately vetting personnel accused of abuses could reproduce the same problems under a new institutional structure.