The Bangladesh Chhatra League has expressed deep dissatisfaction over the verdict in the Abu Sayeed murder case, rejecting it outright and describing it as a “kangaroo court decision.” The organization has alleged that the judicial process was biased and predetermined.
In a statement, the Chhatra League claimed that both the investigation and trial were incomplete and failed to uncover the actual truth. Instead, it argued, a politically motivated and populist verdict had been presented to the public.
The organization further stated that a fair and impartial investigation into the murder was never conducted. It alleged that crucial evidence—particularly the autopsy report and the broader context of the incident—was not properly considered. It also accused the judiciary of being used as a tool to establish a specific political narrative.
According to the statement, during the quota reform movement in July 2024, the Chhatra League maintained a position in favor of peaceful and constructive resolution. It claimed to have promoted awareness among students, called for dialogue, and supported administrative efforts to maintain stability. It also referenced a High Court decision from July 11, 2024, which stated that the quota system was not in effect at that time.
However, the organization alleged that a “malicious group of perpetrators” deliberately exploited the movement to incite violence and destabilize the situation through targeted killings. It claimed that the then government had initiated an impartial investigation into those incidents.
Criticizing the subsequent political developments, the statement asserted that the post-August 5 government, which it described as unconstitutional, had concealed the truth and used various state institutions—including the judiciary—for political purposes. It further claimed that the recent verdict reflects those predetermined political motives.
The Chhatra League also raised concerns about the sentencing of university officials, including the vice-chancellor, proctor, teachers, and numerous students. It alleged that several of the accused were not even present at the scene, yet were punished based on weak and “fabricated” charges, which it said contradict the fundamental principles of justice.
Rejecting the verdict, the organization called for an independent, neutral, and credible investigation, expressing hope that the real truth would eventually come to light.
