Recently, parliament introduced new provisions to bring technology-driven narcotics offences under the Narcotics Control (Amendment) Bill 2026, under which even the maximum punishment—the death penalty—could be meted out for illegal drug trade conducted through cyberspace. In other words, anyone who directly or indirectly uses cyberspace, digital devices, online platforms, electronic communication systems, or other digital means to buy, sell, supply, promote, advertise, or mediate transactions involving illegal drugs or psychoactive substances will be liable to punishment. The use of digital payment systems, e-wallets, virtual assets, or cryptocurrency for such activities has also been criminalised. Furthermore, the recovery of drugs from an accused person will not be mandatory for securing a conviction.
Bangladesh is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has no reservation about Article 6 of the treaty, which states, “…sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes…” In that light, how is the maximum punishment justified under this amended narcotics law? Especially when drug-related offenses are not characterised as the most serious crimes, unlike intentional homicide or crimes against humanity. Strict measures against drugs are certainly necessary. However, incorporating the death penalty as a form of severe punishment is not the same as ensuring justice. It also conflicts with the fundamental principles of criminal law, sentencing policy and criminology. Punishment must certainly be proportionate to the crime, but drug trafficking does not fall into the category of serious crimes such as murder or culpable homicide, making the death penalty an inappropriate punishment in this instance.
Moreover, the same punishment for everyone does not lead to justice. The crimes and culpability of a mafia drug lord, a drug trafficker, the kingpin of an international drug ring, a courier, a first-time offender, and an individual involved in the trade due to his/her addiction are not the same. Imposing the death penalty for all cases of drug trafficking fails to distinguish between the different levels and seriousness of offence. Besides, there is little reliable evidence that the death penalty is effective. Criminological research indicates that the certainty of being caught is more effective in deterring crime than the severity of the punishment. In fact, not a single death penalty has been carried out, although several have been imposed, in drug-trafficking-related cases since this punishment was introduced in the 2018 narcotics control law. And, the threat of drugs has been escalating at an exponential rate. This implies that the death penalty plays no role in restraining crime.
There is also a high risk of miscarriage of justice in cybercrime cases. Identifying the actual culprit often becomes complicated due to factors such as fake IDs, hacked accounts, cryptocurrency, and intermediaries. Since there is no requirement for the physical recovery of contraband, the possibility of false complaints, harassment, and the framing of charges against innocent individuals remains. The stricter the law, the greater the potential for misuse.
Judicial principle requires that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases; yet, legislative enactments are incorporating provisions for capital punishment on a wholesale basis. Most people do not engage in the drug trade in cyberspace using their true identity. When identifying the actual owner of a social media ID or an account is difficult, there will be room for error. Imposing the death penalty in such sensitive cases carries the chance of an innocent person facing the maximum punishment. Besides, drug kingpins often stay in the shadows and escape capture. Instead, it is the couriers, or low-level accomplices, who get caught. Consequently, this will do little to curb the crime.
To demolish the drug menace, the production and supply chains must be destroyed. This requires administrative measures, not legislation. The eradication of acid attacks serves as a relevant example here. Imposing the death penalty for acid attacks did not reduce them; rather, the incidents declined because the production and marketing of acid were properly maintained.
The Narcotics Control (Amendment) Bill, 2026 acknowledges a real and growing threat. Drug trafficking has now entered the digital age. Yet, the legislation attempts to address this primarily by increasing penalties, without taking any steps to modernise the institutions required to investigate and prosecute cyber-enabled crimes. Inadequacies such as unskilled digital forensics, lack of financial intelligence, or vague evidentiary standards cannot be compensated for by imposing strict punishments. A sustainable response to drug trafficking needs more than rigid penalties. Bangladesh needs a comprehensive legal and legislative framework that prioritises evidence-based investigations, coordinated persuasion, and coherent judicial proceedings. Ultimately, the strength of a modern drug policy should be evaluated not by how strictly it punishes offenders but by how efficiently it reduces drug trafficking while ensuring justice, due process, and fundamental rights.
Obaydul Sikdar and Most. Sumaiya Afrin are LLM candidates in international law at Rajshahi University.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
