Shadik Kayem dismisses ‘narrative’ that he tried to protect Shibir men hiding in BCL

Islami Chhatra Shibir central leader Md Abu Shadik Kayem has responded to several allegations raised by Abdul Qader, convenor of the Dhaka University unit of Ganatantrik Chhatra Sangsad (Bangladesh Democratic Students Council-BDSC) and former coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement.

Shadik Kayem claimed that the narrative accusing him of helping to protect Shibir members hiding within the Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) is completely false.

He made the claim in a post from his verified Facebook account in the small hours of Monday. Kayem currently serves as Central Publication Secretary of Islami Chhatra Shibir and is a former president of its Dhaka University unit.

Earlier on Sunday night, Abdul Qader wrote in a Facebook post that, during the Awami League regime, some Shibir activists residing in university dormitories were actively involved in Chhatra League. Due to an identity crisis, some of them often became overenthusiastic in their actions.

He also alleged that following the July Uprising, Shadik Kayem lobbied to protect a few of those individuals.

In response, Shadik Kayem’s Facebook post is quoted in full below:

1. After the revolution, there were two key concerns: first, ensuring justice for the crimes committed; second, preventing the harassment of any innocent person under the guise of justice.

At that time, several people contacted us using different channels claiming that although they had been affiliated with the Chhatra League, they had not committed any criminal offences and were being targeted out of personal vendettas.

Naturally, in a situation where mass lawsuits were feared, it became essential to forward such claims to stakeholders involved in the movement and verify the facts through mutual feedback to determine who was actually guilty and who wasn’t. That’s why I forwarded some of these concerns to Arman Hossain and Mahin—NCP leader and a member of the reform commission—for further investigation.

I simply asked them to verify whether the individuals in question had indeed been involved in the attacks, so that innocent people would not fall victim due to misunderstandings.

2. During that time, leaders of NCP and other political groups received many such recommendations, which they internally shared and discussed to verify facts.

Abdul Qader himself has noted that the case lists were prepared in mutual consultation. How else would we distinguish between perpetrators and victims if not through internal communication?

3. None of the individuals mentioned in the shared screenshots were members of Shibir. They were not in any Shibir position or programme after 5 August.

So, the claim that I tried to protect Shibir members hiding in Chhatra League is completely false.

4. There is also a false allegation that I made calls to save someone named Sayeedi from being charged.

Sayeedi is indeed a perpetrator, and there’s no question of saving him.

5. I’ve also been falsely accused of being linked to someone from Mohsin Hall. But I don’t even know this Shahadat.

Furthermore, Qader has written, “After the case in September 2024, someone posted on Facebook about Shahadat. Afterwards, the then Shibir president Shadik Kayem contacted the person who posted that.”

Well then, if I had wanted to call anyone, wouldn’t I have done so before the case was filed? Why would I call someone after a random Facebook post?

There are quite a few people who were once involved with Shibir—maybe in their area, or while studying at Tamirul Millat—who later became vocal anti-Shibir activists. Some even rose to top leadership in July’s movement while having once used Shibir connections.

If someone briefly associated with Shibir for personal gain later took up anti-Shibir roles or joined Chhatra League—yet despite being regularly victimised by such people, Shibir is expected to take responsibility for their actions—then by that logic, Shibir must also be held accountable for all good and bad deeds of those who later moved on to BDSC or NCP.

Would that be reasonable?