January 7, 2026
DHAKA – Enforced disappearances in the country were not the work of rogue officers or isolated incidents, but a deliberate state‑run campaign, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances said in its report.
Refuting claims of innocence by senior officials, the Commission said that evidence shows the operations were part of an organised state security framework — planned and coordinated across military, police, and intelligence services — making ignorance or justification on security grounds implausible.
Considering the persistence of these activities, the Commission said, both individual officers and the agencies they represented cannot evade responsibility,
The report, shared yesterday by the Chief Adviser’s Press Wing, indicates that multiple agencies were involved, including the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), Rapid Action Battalion (Rab), and National Security Intelligence (NSI).
These agencies not only carried out the detentions but also coordinated and concealed them, the report reads. Senior officers, including Lt Gen Akbar of DGFI, were directly implicated in authorising or sustaining unlawful detentions, it added.
A common defence by those implicated is that they did not personally order the abductions or carry them out, or that the detainees and facilities predated their tenure.
The Commission rejected the arguments, stating that responsibility for the crimes cannot be confined to the original act. Enforced disappearance is a continuing crime; as long as a victim remains unlawfully detained and their whereabouts concealed, the crime persists, it said.
Officials assuming control over detention facilities inherit responsibility for ongoing violations.
The report cited the 2024 army inquiry into Brigadier Azmi’s abduction, which concluded that subsequent commanders who maintained his detention were equally responsible.
Another claim is that senior officials were unaware of the disappearances.
The Commission also dismissed this, noting the scale, duration, and visibility of the practice made ignorance implausible. Enforced disappearances occurred nationwide over several years, affecting thousands of victims, documented in media reports, court proceedings, and family testimonies.
The Commission’s framework for accountability does not require proving that an official personally ordered the abductions. It only requires proving that they knew, or should have known, of the ongoing violations and failed to act.
Testimonies, including those of Lt Gen Akbar, confirm that top officials were aware of these actions. Akbar admitted discussing the disappearance of Hummam Quader with former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who instructed that the detainee be released, showing high-level knowledge and involvement.
The report also found no legal justification for the disappearances. International law prohibits enforced disappearances under any circumstance, including during states of emergency.
Claims that rogue officers acted alone were similarly rejected.
Victims reported consistent methods of abduction, detention, and interrogation, often in facilities near senior officials’ offices, making it implausible they were unaware. The operations required careful planning and coordination among the military, police, and intelligence agencies, said the report.
The commission also found clear evidence of inter-agency communication in transferring detainees between facilities.
These were organised, state-sponsored actions, not random acts of misconduct, it said.
Evidence indicates that enforced disappearances targeted opposition members, activists, and government critics rather than individuals involved in terrorism, the Commission said. It added that many incidents occurred during elections or periods of political unrest, suggesting political suppression rather than national security concerns as the primary motive.
The report warned that these practices have increased social instability, leaving released victims with deep psychological and emotional scars, which have been exploited by extremist groups.
MILITARY LAW VS CIVILIAN COURTS
Some military officials have argued that allegations against military personnel should be addressed under military law rather than through civilian courts.
However, the Commission rejected this, highlighting the inadequacies of the Army Act, 1952, specifically for two reasons.
“First, the Army Act does not recognise enforced disappearance or abduction as criminal offences, nor does it provide for superior or command responsibility. The omission is not merely technical: the Army Act is structurally incapable of addressing the gravity, systemic nature, and leadership accountability inherent in enforced disappearance,” read the report.
“Second, the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 not only recognises enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity and expressly provides for the responsibility of superiors, it also contains a non obstante clause in Section 26, giving it overriding effect over any conflicting law.”
The Commission also found that military-led investigations have failed to hold perpetrators accountable.
For example, an internal military inquiry into Brigadier Azmi’s abduction was disbanded without resolution, and the evidence was destroyed, demonstrating the military’s failure to ensure accountability.