What is the crime of Sathi Akter, a female entrepreneur from Bhaluka? She expressed her frustration over repeated thefts at her business establishment. In a Facebook live, she said, “Suffering due to voting for the BNP government.”
Angered by Sathi Akter’s statement, local BNP leaders and activists surrounded her business establishment, demanding justice. Subsequently, the police took her into custody and later arrested and sent her to court, which then sent her to jail.
As a citizen, she shared her experience, sought security from the government, and expressed disappointment over her voting decision. What could be more ordinary in a democratic state? Yet the situation she faced is not just a case of harassment of a female entrepreneur; it raises serious questions about the ruling party, police, and judiciary’s stance towards freedom of expression and dissent.
Sathi Akter has been in business for about 14 years. According to her, electrical wires were stolen from her shop multiple times recently, and similar thefts occurred in neighbouring shops. These incidents have caused her financial losses. It is the responsibility of law enforcement to prevent theft and ensure the security of businesses. Thus, she has ample reason to express her frustration.
However, instead of addressing this issue, local BNP leaders and activists gathered in front of her business establishment, almost like a mob. A local Swechchhasebok Dal leader told Prothom Alo that party activists were angry over the alleged derogatory remarks about BNP and wanted to resist the woman. The question is, where did they get the right to ‘resist’ a citizen just because they didn’t like what she said?
The police’s role is even more surprising. The officer-in-charge of Bhaluka police station stated that he viewed the video multiple times and found Sathi’s statement to fall under freedom of speech. According to him, tension arose because the woman acted aggressively with some businessmen, leading to her arrest under section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A statement may seem offensive or objectionable. It can be protested. But it is extremely concerning to detain someone due to dissatisfaction, and for the police to arrest them under the Anti-Terrorism Act. To consider a statement as an act of terrorism, specific elements and evidence related to the relevant law are required. Making offensive remarks about a leader of the ruling party cannot be an alternative to that evidence.
The police’s explanation is misleading. What role did those who surrounded her business establishment play in inciting tension? Why was the person making the statement arrested under the pretext of controlling the situation? Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied to prevent a potential cognizable offence. Merely causing tension does not justify arresting someone under this section.
If someone feels aggrieved by a statement, they can follow a legal path. However, encircling a business, creating a frightening situation, and handing the person making the statement over to the police, demanding justice, is not the rule of law. Such incidents send a terrible message to others—they may face all sorts of harassment, legal and illegal, for criticising the ruling party.
Not an isolated incident
There is a resemblance between the Bhaluka incident and an event on 2 April in Sreenagar of Munshiganj. Local BNP and Jubo Dal leaders and activists gathered at the restaurant of Shaon Mahmud, accused of making alleged derogatory remarks on Facebook about Prime Minister Tarique Rahman. They detained Shaon and handed him over to the police, who arrested him under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
According to a report by Jamuna Television, the Jubo Dal leaders and activists present at the scene said they could not tolerate the post critical of the Prime Minister. The police also stated that party activists detained Shaon and handed him over. Human Rights Watch highlighted the incident as an example of treating expression as a crime under pressure from government supporters.
Both the government and BNP's top leadership must take a clear stance on this issue. Party activists must stop acting like mobsters by surrounding someone’s house or business due to dissatisfaction with their statements, detaining them, or pressuring the police to take action against them. At the same time, the police must step away from the culture of political allegiance. To protect democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression, this must be done.
A statement may seem offensive or objectionable. It can be protested. But it is extremely concerning to detain someone due to dissatisfaction, and for the police to arrest them under the Anti-Terrorism Act. To consider a statement as an act of terrorism, specific elements and evidence related to the relevant law are required. Making offensive remarks about a leader of the ruling party cannot be an alternative to that evidence.
There are many more examples of similar incidents; businesses have been encircled somewhere, party activists have detained someone and handed them over to the police, and there have been allegations of attacks centering on online reactions. In all these incidents, a trend is evident: a section of the ruling party takes the law into their own hands in response to dissent, criticism, or negative reactions; and by observing police operations, it seems they act more on party directives than securing citizens' rights.
A gap between promises and reality
BNP leaders and activists faced cases, arrests, and harassment while in opposition for a long time. The party should not be unaware of the experience of curtailed freedom of expression. BNP has criticised the Awami League government for the alleged use of various laws, including the Digital Security Act, to harass journalists, opposition activists, and ordinary citizens.
BNP also promised to ensure freedom of expression for citizens regardless of political identity if they came to power. The evaluation of that promise lies in how the government and the party treat those who speak against the government.
Article 39 of the Constitution recognises freedom of thought, conscience, and expression, although it also provides for reasonable restrictions by law. These restrictions cannot be used as a shield against criticism of the ruling party or leaders.
The government, party, and state are not synonymous. Criticising the government is not a crime against the state; rather, demanding accountability for the government’s actions is a democratic right.
Both the government and BNP's top leadership must take a clear stance on this issue. Party activists must stop acting like mobsters by surrounding someone’s house or business due to dissatisfaction with their statements, detaining them, or pressuring the police to take action against them. At the same time, the police must step away from the culture of political allegiance. To protect democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression, this must be done.
#Monzurul Islam is Senior Sub Editor, Prothom Alo
*The views expressed here are the author's own.
#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam