Dhaka, 18 August — Three prominent journalists — Shyamal Dutta, Mozammel Haque Babu and Farzana Rupa — are set to be named as accused in a crimes against humanity case over alleged provocative statements during the July 2024 uprising, a development that has renewed scrutiny of Bangladesh’s constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, press freedom and the public’s right to information. All three have been detained for an extended period without trial under the interim government led by Dr Muhammad Yunus, amid broader concerns among critics that the administration has been dismantling or marginalising symbols, institutions and narratives associated with Bangladesh’s Liberation War history.
The three journalists now face another legal ordeal under the present BNP government. The International Crimes Tribunal-2 on Monday ordered the relevant prison authorities to produce Shyamal Dutta, Mozammel Haque Babu and Farzana Rupa before the tribunal on August 24 following an application by the prosecution.
They are expected to be formally shown arrested in the case when produced before the tribunal. The development has intensified concerns over whether the proceedings represent legitimate criminal accountability for alleged incitement or risk becoming another avenue for restricting journalism, political expression and dissent. It has also renewed scrutiny of the constitutional protections afforded to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and citizens’ right to information.
Prosecution Alleges Role in an “Alternative Narrative”
According to the prosecution, the three journalists allegedly contributed to the offences cited in the case during a July 14, 2024 press conference held at Ganabhaban in the presence of then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
The press conference was held in connection with Hasina’s China visit. During the event, she referred to the quota movement and used the term “Razakar”, a remark that protesting students described as derogatory. Protests subsequently spread in different places from that night.
The prosecution alleges that from July 14 until August 5, the three journalists played a role in developing what it described as an “alternative narrative” against the student movement.
According to the case documents, Mozammel Haque Babu was then managing director and editor-in-chief of Ekattor Television, while Farzana Rupa served as its chief reporter. Shyamal Dutta was a former general secretary of the National Press Club.
The tribunal’s latest order concerns allegations that remain subject to judicial determination. The three journalists have not been convicted in this case, and any criminal responsibility will ultimately depend on evidence presented before the tribunal and the court’s findings.
A Second Crimes Against Humanity Case
Babu and Rupa are also facing proceedings in another crimes against humanity case concerning allegations of repression, killing by the Awami League government against Hefazat-e-Islam supporters at Motijheel Commercial District’s Shapla Chattar and in Narayanganj in 2013.
The cases therefore place the journalists within a broader post-July-2024 judicial process in which people from different professions are being investigated over alleged roles in events connected to the previous political order.
Constitutional Protection of Speech and the Press
The proceedings, however, raise a separate constitutional question concerning the limits of journalism and political expression.
Article 39 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and expression as well as freedom of the press, while permitting restrictions under specified circumstances, including those prescribed by law in the interests of state security, public order and other constitutionally recognized grounds.
That protection does not provide journalists with immunity from criminal prosecution where specific conduct independently meets the legal threshold for an offence. At the same time, the existence of controversial political opinions, reporting choices or an editorial position cannot, by itself, settle the question of criminal responsibility.
The Liberation War Narrative and Political Dissent
The controversy becomes more politically sensitive when allegations of suppressing voices associated with forces opposed to the Liberation War or with the political legacy of the Awami League are placed alongside prosecutions involving journalists.
There is a fundamental distinction between holding individuals legally accountable for specific criminal conduct and silencing a political viewpoint because it is regarded as hostile to the Liberation War or to a particular political interpretation of Bangladesh’s history.
The former can fall within the legitimate authority of the justice system if supported by evidence and due process. The latter would raise a substantially different constitutional and democratic concern.
COMMENTS