It is one of those stories that make both lawyers and laymen pause: a group of former army officers, once declared “forcibly disappeared” during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, have now reappeared — very much alive, vocal, and, curiously, litigious. They have filed cases claiming to be victims of “enforced disappearance.” It would almost be tragic if it weren’t so absurd. How can someone file a case for being a ghost when he is physically present in court, breathing, blinking, and demanding justice?

The legal irony here is thick. Enforced disappearance, as defined in international law, presupposes that a person is taken by the state or its agents and subsequently denied recognition of his detention or whereabouts. In other words, the essence of the crime lies not in the initial act of detention, but in the state’s concealment of that act — a denial that places the victim outside the protection of law. But if the so-called victim later reappears, gives interviews, and even holds press conferences, the legal premise collapses. The central question becomes: were they truly “disappeared,” or were they simply detained under circumstances that now appear politically convenient to reinterpret?

Bangladesh’s penal code does not use the term “enforced disappearance.” Instead, it recognizes familiar offenses like kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and illegal detention. Each of these requires factual establishment: that the detention was unlawful, that it was unauthorized, and that the victim’s liberty was unjustly curtailed. Yet the recent claims by these officers stretch these definitions to the brink of comedy. Their return from alleged oblivion has not only undermined the narrative of disappearance but also mocked the gravity of a real human rights crime.

From a purely jurisprudential perspective, the reappearance of a........

© Blitz