Dhaka, May 15, 2025 — Serious concerns are emerging about the impartiality and credibility of Bangladesh’s Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances following a controversial social media interaction between commission member Dr. Nabila Idris and a notorious fugitive militant leader.
Dr. Idris, who also serves as a lecturer at BRAC University, posted on her personal Facebook account on January 13, 2025, highlighting the commission’s ongoing work: “8:30 PM: The commission on enforced disappearances is still working hard in the office. One day, we will surely have to write the long tale of this immense and unequal fight that we have fought to some extent!”
The post drew a comment from Major Syed Ziaul Haque, known as Major Zia, the head of the banned extremist outfit Ansar Al Islam. He replied, “Great work, dear Sister! Thanks again from all the oppressed people.” Major Zia, a former army officer turned fugitive militant, is responsible for multiple targeted assassinations of secular bloggers and writers and has been sentenced to death in three separate cases.
The public endorsement from one of Bangladesh’s most wanted terrorists has triggered widespread backlash, particularly due to Dr. Idris’s silence in response. Critics argue that this interaction casts serious doubt on her impartiality as a member of a commission investigating enforced disappearances—an area now increasingly entangled with political narratives, counterterrorism efforts, and human rights claims.
Adding to the concerns is the fact that the commission’s chairman, retired Justice Moinul Islam Chowdhury, is a close relative of Major Zia by marriage. This familial connection has intensified suspicions that the commission may be indirectly influenced by those with sympathies toward or connections with extremist networks.
Meanwhile, Major Zia has recently resurfaced on social media and in court proceedings. In January 2025, the Anti-Terrorism Tribunal in Dhaka filed a petition seeking to drop seven criminal cases against him, citing his alleged withdrawal from violent activity and desire for political rehabilitation. The shift in narrative around his persona—from a convicted terrorist to a potentially reformed actor—has raised alarms within security and legal circles.
The situation further escalated when, on February 12, 2025, Dr. Muhammad Yunus led a delegation to the secret prison known as “Aynaghar,” where a senior JMB militant was presented as a state witness claiming to have been tortured under the previous regime. It is believed that Dr. Nabila Idris was also part of this delegation, further tying her presence to controversial state narratives involving militant testimonies.
More recently, on May 9, 2025, leaders of banned outfits—including IS trainee Asif Adnan and Ansarullah Bangla Team chief Jasimuddin Rahmani—were seen openly protesting in Shahbagh, demanding a ban on the Awami League. Rahmani, long imprisoned for his extremist preachings, was released on bail just two weeks after the Yunus-led interim government came into power.
Amid this backdrop of growing militant presence, Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sheikh Md. Sajjat Ali declared on April 27: “There are no militants in Bangladesh. Earlier, dramas were staged with the coating of militancy.” This statement, widely criticized, has ignited a national debate about whether past anti-terror operations, including the tragic Holey Artisan Bakery attack in 2016, are now being dismissed as mere fabrications.
Furthermore, unverified reports suggest that Nabila Idris may have had ties to the banned extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir during her postgraduate studies in the UK—an allegation that only adds to the public distrust surrounding her current role.
Security analysts warn that if state commissions begin relying on narratives shaped by militants, the very people who once risked their lives to protect the nation—law enforcement and intelligence officers—may now find themselves unfairly accused.
Once a symbol of resilience against terrorism, Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads. With signs of militant resurgence and state-sanctioned reintegration efforts underway, the country faces an uncomfortable reckoning: are convicted extremists being quietly legitimized in the name of political change?