Parliament’s passage of the Special Response Battalion (SRB) Bill, 2026, paving the way for the abolition of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), is a significant step in reforming Bangladesh’s law-enforcement structure. We welcome the initiative, particularly because RAB has long been associated with serious allegations of human rights violations, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
However, abolishing RAB on paper is only the beginning. The real test will be whether the proposed SRB represents a genuine institutional reform or merely a change of name and signboard.
Opposition lawmakers have strongly criticised the bill, describing the proposed arrangement as “old wine in a new bottle”. Their concern deserves careful consideration. Under the bill, RAB’s manpower, facilities, assets, equipment, funds, contracts, records and other resources will be transferred to the SRB. The new force will also retain significant powers, including investigation, search, arrest and seizure.
The government has reasonably argued that state-owned assets cannot simply be discarded and that transferring them to the successor organisation will prevent unnecessary expenditure. That argument is understandable. Yet physical assets and institutional practices are two different matters. Equipment, offices and legitimate state resources may be transferred, but the culture, command practices and operational methods associated with past abuses must not be carried into the new organisation.
The government has an opportunity to ensure that the SRB becomes a genuinely professional, accountable and rights-respecting specialised police unit. For that, strong safeguards are essential from the very beginning.
First, the SRB must operate under clear legal limits and effective judicial and parliamentary oversight. Its powers of arrest, detention, search and investigation must be exercised strictly according to law. No specialised force should become a parallel authority beyond meaningful scrutiny.
Second, an independent and credible complaint mechanism is indispensable. The proposed complaint redress committee should have sufficient independence and authority to investigate allegations against SRB personnel. The suggestion that an experienced former judge could head such a mechanism merits serious consideration.
Third, transparency must be built into the organisation. The locations of detention facilities and offices should be clearly identified and officially gazetted. Records of arrests, detention and investigations should be properly maintained and subject to lawful oversight.
Most importantly, the government must make it clear that the era of alleged abuses associated with RAB will not return under another name. A change of uniform, emblem or organisational title cannot by itself establish public confidence.
The SRB should therefore be judged not by what it inherits from RAB, but by how differently it operates. Its personnel must receive training in human rights, due process and professional policing, while accountability must apply regardless of rank or political influence.
We welcome the abolition of RAB and the creation of a new specialised force. But our greatest expectation is that the SRB will never become RAB under another name. If the government can ensure transparency, accountability, professionalism and respect for human rights, the opposition’s “old wine in a new bottle” criticism will ultimately prove unfounded.
The country needs not merely a new force, but a new law-enforcement culture. That must be the real purpose of the SRB.
