It has been approximately six weeks since the arrest and imprisonment of leftist student leader Sheikh Tasnim Afroz Emi. Emi, the former vice-president of Dhaka University’s Shamsunnahar Hall union and a central vice-presidential candidate in the 2025 Ducsu election, was detained on March 7, along with two members of the banned Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), for allegedly attempting to play Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic March 7, 1971 speech.
The chain of events commenced with the arrest of Md Asif Ahmed Shoikot, a former employment affairs secretary of BCL’s Shahidullah Hall unit at Dhaka University, for playing the speech on a loudspeaker on the afternoon of March 7 by Shahbag police. Later that same evening, Emi and others tried to play the same speech in front of the National Museum in protest against Shoikot’s arrest. They were intercepted by two DUCSU representatives and handed over to the police. Subsequently, a case was filed against the trio under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.
The decision to invoke this law in the case has raised unresolved queries, particularly regarding how the public playing of a historic speech could be deemed a violation under anti-terror legislation, which is known for its severe penalties. The situation has become more pressing since Emi and the co-accused were denied bail for the third time on April 8.
The initial explanation provided by the police did not cite terrorism, extortion, assault, or the reactivation of a banned organization as grounds for the arrest. Instead, the primary issue highlighted was the playing of a significant historical speech. This raises concerns about the legality of such an action given that freedom of speech and expression is safeguarded under Article 39 of the Constitution, subject to lawful restrictions. The state authorities must clarify how the alleged breach of law occurred based on the available information.
Furthermore, the significance of the March 7 speech in Bangladesh’s history, recognized by UNESCO, underscores the questionable nature of treating its public presentation as suspicious. Any alleged offenses related to hindrance, unlawful assembly, or attempts to revive a proscribed group ought to be substantiated and prosecuted under appropriate legal statutes.
The application of the Anti-Terrorism Act in this scenario appears challenging to rationalize given its intended focus on combating terrorism and serious threats to public safety. The denial of bail in this case, despite previous instances where bail has been granted to high-profile detainees under the same law, raises concerns about potential misuse and inconsistent application of the legislation.
The issue of bail remains pertinent, as demonstrated in a recent case involving Masum Khalasi, a murder suspect granted interim bail in a separate matter. This highlights the importance of bail as a fundamental component of the justice system, even in grave cases. The disparity in bail decisions underscores the questionable nature of the anti-terror narrative in Emi’s case.
In light of these circumstances, it is imperative for the authorities to clarify the legal basis for deeming the public playing of the March 7 speech as an offense, justify the application of anti-terror laws in this context, and uphold the detainees’ right to seek bail. Transparency and adherence to legal principles are essential in ensuring a fair and just legal process.
If there are legitimate grounds for Emi’s detention, they should be substantiated in court. However, the repeated denial of bail, particularly in a case involving the mere playing of a speech under stringent laws, raises concerns about potential misuse of legal mechanisms that could impede freedom of expression. Such actions are incongruent with the principles of a democratic society.
Arafat Rahaman is a journalist at The Daily Star. He can be reached at [email protected].Â
Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.Â
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.