DHAKA Aug 21, 2025 — The pursuit of justice looms large as Bangladesh commemorates the 21st anniversary of the August 21 grenade massacre—one of the most brutal attacks in the country’s history.
On this day in 2004, during the BNP–Jamaat coalition’s tenure, assailants hurled grenades into a peaceful anti-terrorism rally of the Awami League on Dhaka’s Bangabandhu Avenue. Then opposition leader Sheikh Hasina was the principal target and narrowly survived as party workers formed a human shield. The attack killed 24 people, including senior AL leader Ivy Rahman, and injured hundreds.
Two decades later, Bangladesh’s most politically consequential terror case is again at a crossroads. The Supreme Court’s Appellate Division on Thursday set 4 September 2025 to deliver its verdict on the government’s appeal against a High Court ruling that acquitted all 49 convicts, among them BNP acting chair Tarique Rahman and former state minister for home Lutfozzaman Babar.
The anticipated judgment follows arguments over the High Court’s December 2024 decision to overturn the 2018 trial-court verdict that had sentenced 19 to death and 19—including Tarique Rahman—to life imprisonment for the August 21 attack.
International media reported the sweeping acquittals amid Bangladesh’s convulsive political transition after Hasina’s ouster in August 2024, while local outlets tracked the later withdrawal of warrants for those cleared.
The attack that reshaped politics
At least 13 military-grade grenades detonated in rapid succession moments after Hasina’s speech, turning the avenue into a killing field. Witnesses later recalled “feet slipping in thick blood.” Ivy Rahman died three days later of grievous wounds.
Dhaka’s then mayor Mohammad Hanif, gravely injured while shielding Hasina, succumbed to complications in 2006. Estimates of the wounded run well above 300, with some reports placing the toll beyond 500.
Trials, reversals, and the fight over accountability
A Dhaka speedy-trial tribunal in October 2018 called the carnage a “well-orchestrated plan executed through abuse of state power,” handing the death penalty to Babar and others and life terms to Rahman and 18 more.
In December 2024, the High Court quashed the entire judgment, questioned elements of the probe, and recommended a fresh investigation by a neutral expert agency—an outcome that stunned survivors. The state appealed; the top court now weighs whether to reinstate convictions or order a new inquiry.
Cover-ups, confessions, and ‘Joj Mia’
From the outset, allegations of manipulation dogged the case under the BNP–Jamaat government. The infamous “Joj Mia” diversion—widely criticized in Bangladeshi media—still haunts the record, alongside contested confessions involving militants of HuJI-B, an al-Qaeda-linked outfit active in Bangladesh at the time.
‘We want the rule of law, not erasure’
Survivors and AL leaders mark the anniversary each year demanding accountability, noting that many victims were maimed for life. Hasina has repeatedly said she survived because party workers formed a human shield; Ivy Rahman is remembered as the massacre’s most prominent victim. Political, social, and cultural organizations—including the Awami League—have announced programs of remembrance.
Politics after Hasina’s ouster: the backdrop
Since August 2024, Bangladesh has been under an interim administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, installed after a mass uprising forced Hasina to flee. International outlets reported Yunus describing the protest movement as “well-organised” and “meticulously designed” at the Clinton Global Initiative.
As unrest, communal violence and economic strain continued, the attorney general’s office pressed the Supreme Court to restore the path to justice in the August 21 case. The government drew criticism in June when its press secretary referred to street vigilantes as “pressure groups,” remarks that angered rights advocates.
For the families of August 21, the legal zigzags are not abstractions. Twenty-one years on, they want finality—justice, not erasure. The Supreme Court’s decision will shape not only a historic case but public faith in the rule of law.
