The celebrity actor Shomi Kaiser, now businesswoman, has been imprisoned for 6 months; The journalist couple Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed for 8 months; the member of parliament Asaduzzaman Noor for 7 months; the writer and former leader of the Nirmul Committee Shariah Kabir for 8 months; and the senior editors Mozammel Babu and Shaymal Dutta for 7 months.
These seven have been imprisoned for long periods of time in relation to serious crimes concerning the killings and injuries that took place between 16 July to 5 August - an eruption of state-directed bloodshed that left hundreds dead. Recently, former Narayanganj mayor Selina Hayat Ivy and singer-turned-MP Momtaz have also been arrested and remanded in prison for similar allegations.
Their detentions share many commonalities.
They were all arrested for involvement in murder or attempted murder in relation to a particular shooting without evidence linking them to the particular crimes alleged against them.
Their detentions are based on being named in First Information Reports (FIRs), filed either by those injured or by relatives of those killed during that period, which offer no supporting proof that they were present at the scene or financing or instigating the shooting as alleged in the FIRs.
The police made no effort to conduct investigations prior to their arrest and months later, after prolonged detention, the authorities have still not presented any new evidence to the court linking them to the specific crimes alleged against them.
At every stage—magistrate, district court, and even the High Court—state prosecutors and lawyers have argued against bail. Courts, in turn, have repeatedly upheld these detentions, ignoring the lack of evidence. Where the High Court has given temporary bail, the Attorney General’s office sought and obtained a stay from the Supreme Court. In the sole case of Farzana Rupa where bail was granted after a full hearing, the police circumvented it by “showing” her arrested in relation to another FIR, again without providing any evidence.
These are not isolated incidents. While these seven names are particularly high-profile, there are likely dozens—perhaps even hundreds—more held under similarly spurious legal foundations.
The justice system appears comfortable allowing such individuals – some who are elderly and unwell - to languish in jail, while civil society and mainstream political parties remain disturbingly silent.
Many hoped that the fall of the Awami League would end the culture of arbitrary detention that flourished under its rule. Instead, the new government, despite its rhetoric of reform, appears unwilling—or unable—to break from these old, repressive habits. It may be true that many of these detentions were initiated through politically motivated FIRs filed with the assistance of those linked to political parties or other political actors rather than the government, but its failure to intervene and correct these abuses is inexcusable.
Between 16 July and 5 August, according to government’s verified data, over 800 people were shot dead by law enforcement authorities. The report of the United Nation’s Fact Finding team also found the “former Government and its security and intelligence apparatus, together with violent elements associated with the Awami League, systematically engaged in serious human rights violations, including hundreds of extrajudicial killings”. Without doubt there are many Awami League politicians, activists, and members of security forces who have serious questions to answer and deserve to have been arrested and detained, as many have been.
But many individuals currently imprisoned—including those named above—are not among those against whom credible allegations of murder or attempted murder exist.
The key reason why these people are in detention is that they are all high profile Awami League supporters who during the 15 years of the party’s rule were the government’s fervent supporters.
There may well be legitimate reasons to strongly criticise these individuals. During the period of Awami League rule, they aligned themselves with a government that suppressed opposition, rigged elections, orchestrated enforced disappearances, muted the media, and used arbitrary detention as a political tool.
Yet neither political loyalty, nor being an arch supporter or propogandist to an authoritarian regime amounts to a crime.
It is true that that the editors Shakil Ahmed and Mozammel Babu are both recorded making provocative comments about the protestors at an Editors Guild meeting with the prime minister on 23 July. And Farzana Rupa, whose career was founded through roles in BTV dramas, also made a speech on 1 August outside its burnt-out building, apparently more concerned about criminal damage by protestors than the widespread killings by law enforcement authorities. And hearing some of these comments are shocking. But none of the recordings shows that any of these people called for or supported violence against the protestors or, more specifically, contain evidence of involvement in the particular crimes for which they are detained.
Following Bangladesh’s 1971 War of Independence, the government introduced the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1971. This legislation enabled the prosecution of individuals who had “collaborated” with the Pakistani military during the conflict, even when their actions did not constitute conventional violent crimes. This type of offence – relating to strong support for the Awami League during its fifteen years of government - seems akin to what some proponents of those who support the detention of Awami League supporters might wish existed today.
However, no such offence is currently recognised under Bangladeshi law. And in case anyone thinks this a good idea, establishing such a retrospective offence would of course be highly contentious – particularly outside the context of war. Indeed, it was controversial even at the time: in 1973, two years after trials of “collaborators” started, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman issued a general amnesty, pardoning those convicted under the order and halting further prosecutions.
Though it took it 8 months, one should give some credit to the current government’s attempts to limit arbitrary arrests. In April 2025, the Dhaka Metropolitan Police issued an order requiring high-level approval and credible evidence (eyewitnesses, video, audio, images, call records) before making arrests related to those events. However, this overdue attempt to impose legal safeguards was quickly blocked by a High Court stay order, recently upheld by the appellate division.
The government may well decide to change the law to overcome this judicial hurdle. However, even if it does so, this would only minimise arbitrary arrests in the future. It does nothing to end the continued detention of those imprisoned principally on political grounds, when there is no evidence linking them to the murder or attempted murder case for which they have been arrested.
But there is action that the government can take, if it wishes to end these significant human rights violations.
In cases where the only “evidence” against a person is extravagant support for the Awami League over the years, or in some cases criticism of the July/August protestors, the government should instruct its prosecutors and lawyers — both in lower courts and the High Court — to stop opposing bail. Indeed, this is not just arguably a political imperative, but a matter of professional and constitutional duty.
These cases are in fact in evidential terms little different to the few cases where bail has been granted involving former ministers Saber Hossain Chowdhury and Abdul Mannan, the actress Nusrat Faria, and the retired Jagannath University professor Anwar Begum – the last two following widespread criticism of their arrests.
In any case, it is not as though the police can’t continue investigations about these and other crimes they consider these accused may actually have committed offences. And of course, the courts could impose bail conditions to prevent them from leaving the country.
There are now powerful forces in Bangladeshi politics that appear to disregard due process and human rights—ironically mirroring the very practices they once vocally opposed. These groups, wielding significant political clout and a dominant public voice, are likely to resist any move to release detained Awami League supporters, regardless of how unjust or unfounded their detentions may be.
The government must stand firm against such pressure.
This will be no easy task if the burden of this stance is left solely to the law minister. It must instead be a collective position—clearly and unequivocally endorsed by all members of the Yunus cabinet who profess a commitment to democracy and the rule of law. They must speak out publicly and affirm that justice is not vengeance, and that arbitrary detention has no place in a constitutional democracy.
This moment is not only about righting past wrongs. Bangladesh is on the cusp of embarking on trials for individuals accused of crimes against humanity in relation to the July/August killings. Some people may well ask this; how can the state be trusted in holding fair trials against those where there may well be evidence to support criminal proceedings when simultaneously, it continues to hold others in detention for related offences without credible evidence?