Around six weeks have passed since the apprehension and confinement of left-wing student leader Sheikh Tasnim Afroz Emi. Emi, a former vice-president of the Shamsunnahar Hall union at Dhaka University and a key vice-presidential candidate in the 2025 Ducsu election, was incarcerated on March 7 alongside two members of the proscribed Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL). The reason behind their detention was reportedly linked to their alleged attempt to broadcast Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic March 7, 1971 speech.
The incident unfolded when Md Asif Ahmed Shoikot, the former employment affairs secretary of BCL’s Shahidullah Hall unit at Dhaka University, was taken into custody by Shahbag police for playing the speech over a loudspeaker on the afternoon of March 7. Later that same day, Emi and a group of individuals, including DUCSU representatives, endeavored to play the speech in front of the National Museum in protest of Shoikot’s arrest. However, they were intercepted by the DUCSU members and handed over to the authorities. Subsequently, a case was registered against the trio under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.
The decision to invoke this law in response to the public airing of a historical speech has raised significant queries. Why was the simple act of playing a renowned speech considered an offense under stringent anti-terror legislation? This question has gained prominence, particularly after Emi and her associates were denied bail for the third time on April 8.
Although broader accusations surfaced in the case’s First Information Report (FIR), alleging that Emi and the detainees aimed to revive a banned organization, impede police duties, and assist in Shoikot’s release, the initial grounds for their detention were solely linked to the playing of the speech. This discrepancy raises concerns regarding the application of the law and the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
Furthermore, the utilization of the Anti-Terrorism Act in this context appears unjustifiable considering its intended purpose to combat terrorism and grave public safety threats. The denial of bail under this law in Emi’s case, especially concerning a non-violent act like playing a speech, suggests potential misuse and unequal application of the law.
In light of these circumstances, it is imperative for authorities to clarify the legal basis for deeming the public broadcast of the March 7 speech as punishable, demonstrate how the alleged actions align with anti-terror regulations, and uphold the detainees’ rights to seek bail. The denial of bail to students over a non-violent act raises concerns about due process and freedom of expression in the country.
If there are valid grounds against Emi, they should be substantiated in court, and reasons for her continued detention must be transparent. However, the repeated denial of bail, particularly under stringent laws, risks echoing past oppressive practices and contradicts the spirit of post-independence Bangladesh.
