Dhaka: The five-member commission instituted by the incumbent interim government to investigate enforced disappearances has reported a correlation between the enforcement of anti-terrorism laws within a ‘weaponised criminal justice system’ and the evolving political landscape during the deposed Awami League regime.
According to Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, a copy of the commission’s second interim report was obtained, revealing that the most significant spike in cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act occurred in 2018. This coincided with a general election marked by widespread suppression of opposition activities. The report also noted that 2021 saw another surge of cases, reflecting the state’s response to mass protests, particularly during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Bangladesh.
In contrast, the report indicated that opposition activity in 2023 shifted towards more direct street confrontations, with police less frequently enforcing anti-terrorism charges. “This shift – combined with the concentration of large-scale protests towards the year’s end – contributed to a drop in filings in 2023. By 2024, new cases declined markedly, possibly reflecting the overall lull in opposition activities following the national election,” the report stated.
The commission observed that the timing of case inflows coinciding with national political events challenges the notion that these cases were solely aimed at countering terrorism. A chapter titled ‘Weaponised Criminal Justice System’ in the report highlighted how courts and prosecutorial mechanisms were systematically used to suppress political dissent and shield state actors from accountability.
The Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009, was identified as the most frequently invoked law, with 198 victims facing charges under it, surpassing other legislation such as the Explosive Substances Act, 1884, and the Arms Act, 1878, which had 51 and 43 victims, respectively. Fewer cases were filed under the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006, its successor, the Digital Security Act, 2018, and the Special Powers Act, 1974.
The report suggested an over-reliance on broad national security and criminal statutes, like the Anti-Terrorism Act, indicating systemic criminalization often without individualized evidence. Testimonies from various districts, years, and agencies revealed a consistent pattern of extracting confessional statements from victims of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions through coercion.
Victims reported being coerced into signing Section 164 confessional statements before magistrates, with threats of severe consequences if they refused. Statements from several victims suggested that security forces consistently used direct threats, physical violence, and psychological coercion. These included threats of death, prolonged disappearance, harm to family members, and torture. Victims were often made to appear before magistrates for recording confessions without legal counsel, impeding procedural safeguards.
The commission noted that state authorities deployed criminal statutes to frame charges in ways that were consistent across time, location, and political context. These charges often relied on vague language, recycled accusations, and formulaic justifications, bypassing evidentiary scrutiny.
The report also highlighted how dissent, protest, and ideological deviation were portrayed not based on individual merits but as part of a predetermined narrative of national threat. Online expressions, especially criticism of Sheikh Hasina, state institutions, or support for protest movements, were framed as threats to national security. Laws like the Digital Security Act and Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act were used to securitize dissent in cyberspace, linking it to extremism, public disorder, or anti-state conspiracies.
The report concluded that this legal framing allowed the previous regime to treat political speech not as a civil liberty but as a potential trigger for instability.