BANGLADESH: Criminal justice through the prism of capital ... - FIDH

Restriction of freedom of speech by the ATA
FIDH is deeply concerned about the negative impact that the definition of terrorism embodied
in the ATA could have on the exercise of fundamental freedoms embodied in the ICCPR, such
as the right to freedom of expression (Article 19), the right of peaceful assembly (Article 21),
the right to freedom of association (Article 22) and the right to take part in the conduct of
public affairs (Article 25). This fear is motivated, inter alia, by Section 18 of the ATA which
allows the Government to prohibit any organisation on “the reasonable basis of involvement
in terrorist activities”.
The recent banning of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) Bangladesh illustrates an example of such possible
abuse. Hizb-ut-Tahrir Bangladesh is the Bangladeshi section of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a pan-Islamic
political organisation whose aim is to re-establish the Caliphate under Islamic law to unify
all Muslim countries into one state. 99 According to Odhikar Human Rights Report 2009, the
banning of this organisation “was conveyed through a press note on October 22, 2009. The
press note states the government has banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir Bangladesh from October 10, 2009
because it poses a threat to the security of the public in general”. Odhikar emphasizes the fact
that “the issue of public security was used in the past by the Home Ministry to prevent [the
present Prime Minister] Sheikh Hasina from returning to Bangladesh”. As stated in Odhikar
Human Rights Report 2009, the Government banned HuT “without showing any evidence”
of its involvement in violent or terrorist activities or any “anti-State activities”. 100 In another
case, Mahmudur Rahman, Acting Editor of the daily “Amar Desh”, has been issued a four
days remand under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009. 101
FIDH notes with concern that there is a serious risk that the ATA could be directed against
political opponents rather than against terrorists and has too few legal safeguards to prevent
miscarriages of justice.
Mobilisation against the Anti-Terrorism Act 2009
Many Bangladeshi legal experts and human rights activists strongly criticized the new legislation
when the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance was promulgated in June 2008. 102 The renowned jurist,
Prof. Dr. Shahdeen Malik stated: “In the last few decades, we have enacted more criminal laws
than was necessary and another criminal law will not serve any purpose except for giving the
law enforcement agencies another weapon to misuse and abuse and harass citizens”. 103
Apparently, even the Bangladesh Government was aware that a specific anti-terrorist legislation
was not necessary, as displayed by the Bangladesh reports to the Security Council Counter-
Terrorism Committee. 104 In its 2002 Report, the Bangladesh Government stated that:
99. See Taqiuddin an-Nabahani, The System of Islam (Nidham ul Islam), London, Al Khilafa Publications, p. 50. Available on www.hizbut-tahrir.org/PDF/EN/en_books_pdf/system_of_islam.pdf.
100. 17 Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) members were charged under sections 8/9(1)/10/13 of Anti Terrorism Act, 2009.
101. www.fidh.org/Arbitrary-detention-of-Mr-Mahmudur-Rahman-and
102. “Experts oppose anti-terror ordinance,” The South Asian, 16 July 2008 (available at http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2008/
experts_oppose_antiterror_ordi.html).
103. See “Legal experts oppose anti-terrorism ordinance,” The Daily Star, 18 June 2006 (available at www.thedailystar.net/story.
phpnid=41371).
104. Reports pursuant to Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). The reports are available at www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/resources/1373.html.
32 / BANGLADESH: Criminal justice through the prism of capital punishment and the fight against terrorism