Amnesty raises Human Rights Concerns over Bangladesh Cyber, Disappearance and SRB Laws

Amnesty International has written to Bangladesh’s law minister raising concerns over provisions in the Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Remedies Act and the Special Response Battalion (SRB) Act, 2026, questioning whether they comply with international human rights law and standards.

Smriti Singh, Amnesty International’s South Asia regional director, sent the letter on Monday, October 26. The organisation said the letter followed concerns raised during a meeting between Amnesty Secretary General Agnès Callamard and the law minister on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in September.

Amnesty said several recently proposed or enacted laws in Bangladesh could directly affect human rights. The organisation described its concerns over the disappearance law, SRB law and proposed cyber law as “serious”.

Concerns over freedom of expression in cyber law

Amnesty said the proposed Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, 2026, could undermine human rights, as had the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006, the Digital Security Act, 2018, and the Cyber Security Act, 2023. Previous laws had been used to restrict freedom of expression, it said.

Section 8(2) of the proposed law would empower the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or any authorised agency to remove or block digital content on grounds including national security, public order, hurting religious sentiment, causing disorder or insulting the state.

Amnesty said vague terms such as “anti-government” and “defamation” could be misused against critics of the government and public officials. The organisation said the provisions were vaguely and excessively broadly defined, and that provisions banning criticism of the state or public officials were incompatible with freedom of expression.

International human rights law recognises that public officials and institutions must tolerate a higher degree of criticism than private individuals, Amnesty said, but the proposed Bangladeshi law did not provide such protection.

Section 8(4) of the proposed law would also remove the requirement to obtain tribunal approval within three days of removing content.

Sections 25 and 26(A) would make spreading “rumours”, “bullying”, “harassment” or “propaganda” on social media criminal offences punishable by up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to Tk4 million. Amnesty called for the implementation process to be halted and the proposed law withdrawn.

Praise and amendment call over disappearance law

Amnesty welcomed the passage of the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Remedies Act, 2026. The letter noted that Bangladesh passed the law on September 8 after joining the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance on August 30, 2024.

The organisation said, however, that the law’s current form represented a “missed opportunity” to make it fully consistent with the international convention.

Section 2(H) recognises disappeared persons, their family members and directly affected individuals, but Amnesty said the definition was not fully consistent with Article 24(1) of the convention and recommended that it be revised.

Section 4 requires that the officer making an arrest must also conceal information about the disappearance for the act to qualify as an enforced disappearance. Amnesty described the condition as unrealistic, saying multiple state agencies can be involved at different stages of an enforced disappearance.

Amnesty also criticised a provision under which a case would not be considered an enforced disappearance if an arrested person was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours in the interests of national security, even if information about the arrest, location or other details was withheld. The organisation said the provision was inconsistent with international law and called for its removal.

The organisation objected to the death penalty for enforced disappearance offences. Amnesty opposes capital punishment in all circumstances and urged Bangladesh to move towards its complete abolition.

Amnesty also expressed concern over the provision allowing 90 days for an investigation, with a possible further 30 days. The organisation said requiring investigations into complex crimes such as enforced disappearances to be completed within 120 days could affect their quality.

Police-led investigations also raised questions about impartiality and independence, Amnesty said.

Amnesty opposed retaining the death penalty under Section 6. The organisation also said Section 21, which provides for up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine for filing a “false or harassing” enforced disappearance complaint, could create a major obstacle for families seeking justice.

Questions over SRB law

Amnesty also raised concerns over the Special Response Battalion Act, 2026. The letter referred to allegations of various human rights violations involving the Rapid Action Battalion, or RAB.

The SRB Act effectively renames the controversial RAB force and transfers all its officers, employees, assets and powers to the new SRB force.

Sections 12 and 15 grant the special force unrestricted powers of search, seizure and arrest, Amnesty said.

The organisation also questioned the independence of the “Complaint Resolution Committee” formed under Section 24 to investigate allegations against SRB personnel. The committee includes SRB officers and members appointed by the government, raising concerns over the impartiality of investigations, the letter said.

Amnesty said allegations of human rights violations by SRB personnel must be investigated independently, impartially, transparently and effectively. Conduct amounting to criminal offences should be prosecuted through the ordinary criminal justice system, it said.

Amnesty said Bangladesh should urgently reform the laws in line with international legal standards to protect human rights and prevent the recurrence of past incidents. The organisation also expressed interest in continuing constructive and meaningful discussions with the Ministry of Law.