Guest post by Sakhawat Sajjat Sejan and Abu Bakker Siddiq. Sakhawat Sajjat Sejan is an Assistant Professor of Law at Bangladesh, with a focus on refugee law, particularly the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh. He holds an LL.B. (Hons.) and LL.M. from the University of Chittagong and has contributed significantly to academic research and public discourse on refugee protection. Abu Bakker Siddiq is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Comilla University. He graduated student from the Department of Law, University of Chittagong. He works in the field of international criminal law and international environmental law.
Image source: Wikimedia Commons
Over a million Rohingyas in southern Bangladesh live in a legal vacuum, stateless, undocumented, and without judicial protections (see work by Amal De Chickera). Deprived of basic services, legal representation, and justice, they are treated as non-citizens with no legal identity. This exclusion perpetuates their vulnerability and dependence on external aid. Their statelessness violates both international human rights standards and Bangladesh’s constitutional principles, creating a “legal apartheid” where they are denied the rights and protections guaranteed under both domestic and international law. Although Bangladesh has provided critical humanitarian shelter since the 2017 exodus from Myanmar, it has stopped short of granting the Rohingyas formal refugee status.
Rohingyas are labeled “Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals”, a status that denies them recognition under international law and restricts access to the criminal justice system, legal employment, movement, and education. The Government of Bangladesh perhaps fears that granting them legal status or access to courts could lead to local integration. This has resulted in an informal, unregulated, and often abusive dispute resolution system. This blog post argues for the inclusion of Rohingyas in Bangladesh’s formal criminal justice system and advocates for a rights-based approach, replacing the mercy-based system currently in place.
Justice Without Law: A Systemic Failure
In the absence of legal status, Rohingyas are locked out of the country’s formal legal institutions. Camp leaders, known as Majhis, along with Camp-in-Charges, religious figures, and select NGOs, act as arbiters of justice in everything from domestic disputes to violent crimes. These informal mechanisms operate without procedural safeguards, oversight, or transparency. Victims of crime — especially women, the poor, and those without political backing — are silenced or blamed. Perpetrators, particularly those with power or connections, often go unpunished. Refugees interviewed across several camps described mediation based on favoritism, threats, and bribes — not law. “I’ve seen people punished without any investigation, just because someone influential said they were guilty,” said one refugee. “There is no law here. Just fear.”
The Legal Gap is Not Just a Policy Failure — It’s a Violation
This situation is not simply a humanitarian failure: it is a legal breach. Article 31 of the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees the protection of the law to “every other person for the time being within Bangladesh”. Article 35 affirms the right to a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination, and freedom from cruel punishment. These rights are not restricted to citizens. Bangladesh’s constitution and international human rights treaties, like the article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, guarantee equal access to justice and due process for all, including refugees. Articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reaffirm the right to a fair hearing and effective remedy, binding under customary international law. They have evolved into customary international law binding on the states that have not ratified the UN Refugee Convention 1951 like Bangladesh.
Courts Have Taken a Stance, even if Policies Do Not Comply
Bangladeshi courts have accepted the jurisprudence that establishes that rights of individuals extend beyond citizenship. In Abdul Latif Mirza v. Bangladesh are applicable to all persons within jurisdiction of the court. In Md. Sadaqat Khan (Faqku) v. Chief Election Commissioner the court established to include Biharis in the registration and documentation process of national election. Biharis are the Urdu-speaking people who migrated to Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) from India during and after the liberation war of Bangladesh. They sought refuge there but were denied citizenship, which rendered them stateless for a long time. But in 2008, Bangladesh recognized them as the citizens of the country, as origin alone cannot outnumber fundamental rights.
Many jurisdictions around the world, especially in Europe and America, have recognized the right to effective legal remedy, fair trial, equal access to courts and protection from arbitrary detention for safeguarding the refugees devoid of their legal status. Verdicts from M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and A. v. Australia also affirm the fact that access to justice cannot be denied to stateless individuals and individuals without proper legal status.
Statelessness Is No Excuse for Lawlessness
Bangladesh’s laws, such as the Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to all individuals within its jurisdiction, yet Rohingyas are unable to access legal remedies. They cannot file cases, seek legal aid, or leave the camps to report crimes. Criminal cases are often handled informally by Camp-in-Charges or Majhis, with few exceptions taken to court through UNHCR or legal aid organizations. This lack of formal legal protection violates the principle of non-discrimination and international human rights law. By designating Rohingyas as “Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals”, Bangladesh also discriminates against them under customary international law. Furthermore, delegating quasi-judicial powers to untrained camp officials undermines the separation of powers and affects the safety and rights of the refugees. Such informal justice systems cannot replace a formal, legally sound framework.
Justice is a right, not a privilege. Bangladesh must address the legal vacuum affecting Rohingya refugees by adopting a comprehensive refugee protection statute, ensuring their rights within the framework of international law. Temporary documentation for Rohingyas would provide legal protection without implying permanent settlement. Legal aid centers should be established in camps to offer justice through lawyers and human rights advocates. Integrating refugee-related criminal cases into the formal judicial system, with in-camp courts and a gender-sensitive approach, would enhance accountability. A neutral oversight body of legal professionals and civil society actors should monitor the process. Given the bleak future of repatriation due to the Arakan Army’s control of Rakhine, Bangladesh must provide adequate protection to the Rohingyas.
Justice Is the Foundation, Not the Finish Line
Bangladesh does not need to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention to ensure justice for the Rohingyas. The obligation to protect their rights already exists through its Constitution, treaties, and international law. A functioning justice system is essential not for international image, but for national integrity and the protection of human rights. Excluding an entire population from due process is unlawful and dangerous, breeding impunity and extremism. It undermines social cohesion, perpetuates racial stratification, and fractures the rule of law upon which Bangladesh itself is built.
While community-based justice systems can be effective in some contexts, they present significant challenges for the Rohingya in Bangladesh. Stateless and without legal recognition, the Rohingya are vulnerable to exploitation, discrimination, and abuse within such systems. Local power dynamics often lead to biased decisions, and the lack of accountability and legal safeguards further weakens their effectiveness. Without state intervention or formal legal protections, these informal systems fail to ensure justice for the Rohingya. State-backed judicial interventions are necessary to protect their fundamental rights, provide accountability, and break the cycle of impunity and exclusion. Lastly, justice must not wait for political will. It must be demanded by legal principle. As one refugee put it: “We do not ask for sympathy. We ask for protection. We ask for justice — like any other human being”.
Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or find us on LinkedIn and BlueSky.
How to cite this blog post (Harvard style):
S.S. Sejan and A.B. Siddiq. (2025) Rohingya Refugees and their Crises in Criminal Justice System of Bangladesh . Available at:https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/border-criminologies-blog/blog-post/2025/10/rohingya-refugees-and-their-crises-criminal-justice. Accessed on: 24/10/2025