In the turbulent aftermath of Sheikh Hasina’s resignation, the political landscape of Bangladesh is undergoing a dramatic transformation. Yet, while leadership has changed, the entrenched practices that have long characterized the nation’s political and legal systems persist. The legacy of repression, particularly through the filing of sham cases against political opponents, remains alive and well. This deeply rooted culture of using the legal system as a weapon has now shifted its focus onto the former ruling party, the Awami League, revealing a troubling continuity that challenges the very principles of justice and fairness.
The "Shown Arrested" System: A Tool of Persecution
One of the most egregious examples of this legacy is the "shown arrested" system, a practice that has been perfected over years of political maneuvering. This system allows individuals to be detained by retroactively associating them with criminal cases, often without a shred of credible evidence.
Under Sheikh Hasina's government, this method was used extensively to suppress opposition, particularly against members of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Now, in a cruel twist of fate, it is the Awami League members who find themselves ensnared in the very system they once wielded.
The recent arrests of former social welfare minister Dipu Moni and former deputy sports minister Arif Khan Joy are stark examples of how this system continues to operate. Both were "shown arrested" in a murder case connected to the death of a grocery shop owner during the quota reform movement—a case in which neither was initially named in the First Information Report (FIR). Their names were later added, allowing the police to detain them under the pretext of investigating their involvement. This tactic is deeply problematic, as it bypasses the need for concrete evidence and instead relies on vague, often politically motivated allegations.
The consequences of such practices extend far beyond the individuals targeted. The use of the "shown arrested" system erodes public trust in the legal system, undermining the very foundation of justice in Bangladesh. When the law is used as a tool of political repression, it ceases to serve its true purpose and becomes a mechanism for perpetuating fear and control.
The Role of the Judiciary: Complicity or Independence?
The judiciary, ideally an independent arbiter of justice, has not been immune to the influence of political power in Bangladesh. The ease with which the police can detain individuals under the "shown arrested" system, coupled with the judiciary's apparent willingness to remand suspects without demanding substantial evidence, raises serious concerns about the independence of these institutions.
In the cases of Dipu Moni and Arif Khan Joy, the magistrate’s decision to place them in police custody, despite the chaotic and violent conditions in the courtroom, is a troubling indication of the judiciary’s complicity in these abuses.
During the court proceedings, both Moni and Joy were physically assaulted by pro-BNP-Jamaat lawyers, who not only prevented them from speaking in their defense but also chanted slogans demanding their execution. Such actions, allowed to take place in a courtroom, highlight the extent to which the legal system in Bangladesh has been compromised.
This breakdown in the rule of law is not just a matter of legal procedures gone awry; it is a symptom of a deeper malaise that afflicts the entire political system. When the judiciary becomes an instrument of political vendettas, the very concept of justice is turned on its head. The result is a system where the powerful can manipulate the law to their advantage, while ordinary citizens are left to suffer the consequences of its corruption.
Army "Safe Custody": A Dubious Refuge
In the chaotic days following Sheikh Hasina’s resignation, the situation for former Awami League officials grew increasingly precarious. With law enforcement in disarray and public anger at an all-time high, many high-profile figures sought refuge in army custody—a move that, while intended to protect them from mob violence, raises significant legal and ethical questions.
The case of Zunaid Ahmed Palak, the former state minister for Information, Communications, Technology, is particularly illustrative of this phenomenon. Palak was detained at Shahjalal International Airport while attempting to leave the country, and was subsequently placed in army "safe custody."
The circumstances of his detention were shrouded in secrecy, with his whereabouts unknown for several days. When he finally reappeared, it was in the context of a criminal case, where he was "shown arrested" and remanded in connection with a murder during the student protests.
The concept of "safe custody" under the army’s protection is fraught with contradictions. On one hand, it provided a refuge for Awami League officials who feared for their lives in the face of public anger. On the other, it circumvented the legal process, effectively placing these individuals outside the reach of the law. This duality raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of such detentions, particularly when they are conducted without transparency or legal oversight.
It is important to clarify that there is no love lost for the Awami League leaders and officials who were detained. These individuals were part of a regime often described as fascist, and they played roles in enabling and supporting the genocide against student protesters in July 2024. Their governance was marked by repression and enforced disappearances throughout the Awami League's 16-year rule, fostering a climate of fear and authoritarianism. Moreover, figures like Dipu Moni are alleged to have embezzled hundreds of millions of taka from the country, draining its resources and undermining public trust.
Despite these serious allegations and grievances, it remains imperative that these officials are afforded due process and subjected to proper legal procedures. The army’s role in these detentions, while perhaps motivated by a desire to maintain order, nonetheless represents a troubling departure from the principles of due process. When individuals are detained without clear legal grounds and kept in custody without access to legal recourse, it sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law.
Ensuring that these officials undergo a transparent legal process is crucial not only for justice but also for the integrity of any future legal actions. If Awami League or a pro-Awami League government were to regain power, flimsy or extrajudicial cases against these individuals could easily be dismissed, potentially wiping the slate clean of their alleged misconduct.
Therefore, the use of army "safe custody" as a temporary solution to the chaos of the post-Hasina period may have been expedient, but it comes at a significant cost to the legal system’s integrity and could jeopardize lasting accountability for those accused of grave misdeeds.
The Special Powers Act 1974: A Double-Edged Sword
As the new government grapples with the legal and ethical challenges of detaining former Awami League officials, one potential solution has emerged: the application of the Special Powers Act 1974 (SPA). This controversial law allows for preventive detention for up to three months, subject to review by a special committee, and could provide a legal framework for the continued detention of these individuals.
The SPA, however, is far from an ideal solution. Often criticized as a "black law," the SPA grants the government broad powers to detain individuals on the basis of vague and ill-defined "prejudicial acts." While it could offer a way to place the current detentions on a legitimate legal footing, its use raises significant concerns about the potential for abuse. The SPA’s history is marred by instances of its application to silence political dissent, and its reintroduction in this context could exacerbate, rather than resolve, the current crisis.
Nonetheless, the SPA could offer a temporary solution that avoids the need for filing false criminal cases—a practice that has severely undermined the credibility of the Bangladeshi legal system. By detaining individuals under the SPA, the government would have the time to conduct proper investigations and determine whether there is substantive evidence to support criminal charges.
This approach, while fraught with risks, could help to restore some measure of legality to the current detentions.
Moreover, the use of the SPA would allow detainees to challenge their detention in the High Court, providing them with legal protections that are currently absent under the army "safe custody" system. This access to legal recourse is critical in ensuring that the rights of the detainees are upheld, even in the face of politically motivated charges.
However, the application of the SPA must be tightly controlled. It should be limited strictly to those currently in army custody and should not become a blanket solution for all political detainees. The government must also commit to releasing individuals if, after thorough investigations, no substantial evidence is found to support criminal charges against them. This commitment to transparency and accountability is essential in ensuring that the SPA is not misused as a tool of political repression.
The Path Forward: Legal Reforms and Political Accountability
As Bangladesh navigates its post-Hasina era, the need for legal and political reforms has never been more urgent. The continued use of the "shown arrested" system, the reliance on army custody, and the potential application of the SPA all point to the deep flaws in the country’s legal and political systems. These practices, while perhaps expedient in the short term, risk perpetuating a cycle of repression that undermines the very foundations of democracy and justice.
Reforming the judiciary and law enforcement agencies is critical to restoring public trust in the legal system. This includes abolishing or significantly reforming the "shown arrested" system, ensuring that all legal proceedings are based on credible evidence, and re-establishing the independence of the judiciary.
Judges who are found to be complicit in politically motivated cases must face disciplinary actions, and there should be greater oversight to ensure that legal decisions are made based on the merits of the case rather than political considerations.
Training programs that emphasize the importance of impartiality, evidence-based investigations, and the protection of human rights could play a crucial role in fostering a culture of professionalism within the police and judiciary. By promoting these values, the government can begin to rebuild public trust in the legal system, which has been severely damaged by years of abuse and manipulation.
In addition to legal reforms, there must be a broader effort to address the underlying political culture that gives rise to these practices. This includes promoting dialogue and reconciliation between political parties, encouraging a more constructive approach to political competition, and ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their political affiliations, are treated equally under the law.
The government must also work to ensure that the army’s role in detentions is brought under legal oversight and that detainees are afforded the full range of legal rights, including the right to challenge their detention in court.
The use of the SPA, while controversial, may provide a temporary solution to the current crisis. However, it must be used judiciously and with a clear commitment to upholding the rule of law. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a legal system that serves the interests of justice, rather than being used as a tool of political repression.
A New Chapter for Bangladesh?
The road ahead for Bangladesh is fraught with challenges, but it is also full of opportunities. The country stands at a crossroads, with the chance to break free from the cycles of repression and violence that have defined its recent history. To seize this opportunity, the new government must commit to real and lasting change—reforms that go beyond rhetoric and address the deep-rooted issues within the legal and political systems.
This moment represents a potential turning point, where Bangladesh can move towards a more just and democratic society, where the rule of law prevails, and where every citizen can expect to be treated with fairness and dignity. The task is daunting, but the stakes are too high to ignore. As Bangladesh navigates this new chapter, the world will be watching, hoping that the nation will rise to the occasion and build a future that is free from the shadows of its past.
