A principled defense of Sifat Abdullah does not necessitate sugarcoating his language. In a Facebook video, he used crude and degrading insults against Prime Minister Tarique Rahman and his deceased parents, former President Ziaur Rahman and former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia. While freedom of expression is vital, it does not justify using offensive language. Criticism of policies or leaders is acceptable, but personal attacks diminish public discourse and can violate the rights of others.
Moral outrage alone is insufficient to establish criminal responsibility. Sifat, a 20-year-old student, was arrested in Gazipur on September 3 following the circulation of his viral Facebook video complaining about high electricity bills. He was remanded to jail the next day under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Initially linked to his offensive remarks, the police later clarified that he was detained in connection with a case filed on June 27 involving an alleged incident with Awami League and Chhatra League members. Despite not being named in the initial report, Sifat was included as one of 50 to 60 unidentified accused individuals.
As per the police version, the detention was based on his alleged involvement in the June event. The Anti-Terrorism Act criminalizes various actions related to prohibited entities and offenses, including support, conspiracy, and aiding or abetting. If evidence indicates that Sifat participated in violent activities or conspired to commit offenses under the act, his offensive video would be secondary. The state is obligated to investigate such conduct.
However, there are concerns that the police account may be prioritizing the wrong sequence of events. The case filed against Sifat suggests that details of his alleged participation emerged after his arrest, turning the investigation into a post hoc effort. An arrest should not be a pretext for fishing expeditions where individuals are targeted for their speech before evidence of a more serious offense is gathered.
Criticism, profanity, or political affiliations should not substitute for evidence of involvement in criminal activities. A case involving multiple unidentified suspects should not be used to target individuals merely based on their speech that may upset the ruling party. The key issue is whether there is concrete evidence linking Sifat to the alleged activities in June, not just his provocative language or political leanings. The law must be applied objectively.
Article 39 of the Constitution upholds freedom of speech but allows for reasonable restrictions to ensure state security, public order, decency, and other considerations. Defamation laws can address imputations against deceased persons meant to harm their relatives’ sentiments. Legal remedies exist within ordinary laws, making the use of exceptional security measures harder to justify.
International norms also emphasize lawful, necessary, and proportionate restrictions on speech to protect reputation and public order. Criticism of public figures is legitimate, and insulting a leader does not automatically warrant punishment. The distinction between speech-related offenses and genuine threats to national security must be maintained.
The case of Sifat Abdullah should be reviewed transparently to ensure his arrest is based on solid evidence. If no concrete link to the alleged offense exists, the terrorism charge should be dropped, and his freedom restored. The government should investigate his concerns regarding electricity bills separately.
A democracy can condemn abusive language without resorting to excessive measures. Dignity of rulers should not be conflated with national security interests. The appropriate response to vulgar speech is through legal channels, public rebuttal, and democratic processes, not through accusations of terrorism.
Barrister Khan Khalid Adnan is advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, fellow at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and head of the chamber at Khan Saifur Rahman and Associates in Dhaka.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
