Written by 
The case of Dil Mohammed, a prominent Rohingya spokesperson currently detained by Bangladeshi authorities, has now reached the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD). This development places international scrutiny on Bangladesh’s treatment of Rohingya refugees and raises pressing questions about the legal and humanitarian conditions of his detention.
Since his arrest in January 2023, Mohammed has been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement, restricted communication with his family, and interrogations without legal representation – conditions amounting to violations under multiple international conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention Against Torture.
Mohammed’s case must be viewed in the context of the broader struggles of Rohingya refugees and the complex regional dynamics that worsen their plight. The WGAD complaint argues that Mohammed’s detention is not only arbitrary but reflects systemic issues in how displaced persons are handled within Bangladesh’s jurisdiction, especially those in “No Man’s Land.” Bangladesh will soon have to address these allegations before the U.N., confronting the delicate balance between security operations and upholding human rights.
Dil Mohammed’s journey as a Rohingya refugee and his eventual role as a spokesperson for displaced communities placed him in the crosshairs of a brutal system that is now coming under international scrutiny. After fleeing Myanmar’s genocidal campaign against the Rohingya in 2017, Mohammed and his family sought refuge in the buffer zone between Bangladesh and Myanmar, the so-called No Man’s Land, where thousands of Rohingya refugees lived in fragile and volatile conditions. Yet instead of finding safety, they experienced recurring violence, neglect, and now, detention.
The January 2023 arrest of Mohammed unfolded under deeply troubling circumstances. On January 18, during the attack on No Man’s Land, I exchanged WhatsApp messages with him. In a downhearted voice, he described the chaos: “Bangladesh’s notorious RAB [Rapid Action Battalion], with Rohingya Solidarity Organization [RSO], have attacked us since 6am. The entire camp is destroyed. We have taken refuge in Myanmar. There is firing now from BGP [Myanmar’s Border Guard Police].”
Despite the unfolding crisis, we managed a few more exchanges before his line abruptly went dead the next day – and it has remained silent ever since.
The following day, Mohammed was reportedly summoned by the RSO for a meeting to discuss the camp’s security. However, upon his arrival, he was detained, handcuffed, and blindfolded. Handed over to Bangladeshi authorities, he disappeared into a dark, torturous period of solitary confinement lasting four months. This process, conducted without informing his family or permitting access to legal counsel, constitutes abduction by international standards.
What unfolded next reads as a catalogue of violations against international law. Mohammed’s confinement included coerced interrogations, physical restraint, and ongoing psychological abuse, as he was subjected to threats against his family’s safety if he did not comply. Such conditions have left Mohammed physically weakened and mentally exhausted, illustrating a disturbing disregard for his rights as a human being, let alone as a refugee deserving protection. For the first four months of his detention, his family had no idea whether he was alive or dead, a period of anguish that many human rights experts argue constitutes enforced disappearance.
The WGAD submission outlines that Mohammed was neither told of any charges at the time of his arrest nor allowed a proper defense. Such omissions are not just procedural lapses but are violations under multiple international human rights statutes, including the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The U.N.’s Mandela Rules, which establish standards for the fair and humane treatment of prisoners, prohibit prolonged solitary confinement and emphasize the right to legal counsel. Yet Bangladesh appears to have cast these rules aside in Mohammed’s case, maintaining a detention that fits the WGAD definition of “arbitrary.”
Bangladesh now finds itself under the magnifying glass. The WGAD’s review will demand that the government explain its treatment of Mohammed, with potential recommendations of release and international censure looming if they fail to comply. But this is not simply about a single detained man. Dil Mohammed’s situation is emblematic of how Bangladesh’s security policies impact the lives of vulnerable Rohingya refugees. The broader implications cannot be ignored. Bangladesh, while faced with genuine security concerns around its borders, has increasingly used these concerns as justification for harsh measures that risk undermining the very humanitarian protections refugees are entitled to.
There is, however, some room for optimism. A new administration in Bangladesh has taken office and even appointed an adviser on the Rohingya crisis, a position equivalent to a Cabinet role. This signals an awareness at the highest levels of government of the need for more strategic engagement with the Rohingya issue. Additionally, changes at the top of some of the security services implicated in Dil Mohammed’s incarceration and mistreatment could pave the way for a fair reassessment of his case. These developments present an opportunity for Bangladesh to turn a page and demonstrate its commitment to justice and human rights by bringing this troubling chapter to a swift and just conclusion.
International advocates argue that Bangladesh must face the fact that security can coexist with human rights protections. By continuing down this path of apparent arbitrary detention, Bangladesh’s new government risks jeopardizing their standing in the global community and further alienating partners who are crucial in addressing the Rohingya crisis. As the WGAD prepares its findings, the case of Dil Mohammed stands as a poignant reminder of the cost of turning a blind eye to human suffering – and of the international community’s duty to hold accountable those who do.