Statistics cannot capture the sound of a cell door closing on a lawyer who once argued for others’ freedom.

It began, as so many stories of injustice do, with a courtroom and a promise of fairness that never came.

On 2 September 2025, twelve lawyers in Barguna district walked into the District Sessions Judge’s Court—heads high, robes pressed, faith intact. They had come not as fugitives, but as officers of the court, surrendering in good faith to defend themselves against false and fabricated charges of vandalism and arson at a local BNP office.

The judge denied their bail. They were taken away in handcuffs.

Eight days later, on 10 September, the High Court granted six weeks’ bail to ten of them. For their families waiting outside prison gates, it was a moment of relief—wives preparing meals, children waiting at the door. But as the release orders reached the jail, the cruel machinery of the Muhammad Yunus–led interim government moved again.

Moments before their release, the lawyers were re-arrested under a new case fabricated under the Special Powers Act by the Betagi Police Station and sent straight back to prison.

Among them were Mahabubul Bari Aslam, former President of the Barguna District Bar Association, and Advocates Mojibur Rahman, Saimum Islam Rabbi, Humayun Kabir Poltu, and Nurul Islam, respected figures in their communities. Their “freedom” lasted mere minutes—a cruel illusion that turned hope into heartbreak.

This episode exposes the grotesque logic of repression now governing Bangladesh: even when the highest court speaks, its voice is silenced by handcuffs. Bail means nothing; legality itself has become a crime.

In a democracy, imprisonment should be a last resort, used only when guilt is proven beyond doubt. But in today’s Bangladesh, under a regime led by a Nobel Peace laureate, imprisonment has become a first response—a weapon of control, not justice.

According to documentation by Justicemakers Bangladesh in France (JMBF) between August 2024 and September 2025, there were 75 incidents of imprisonment involving 203 lawyers. These are not isolated misfortunes. They are deliberate acts of political engineering, designed to dismantle independence within the legal profession, particularly among lawyers affiliated with the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) or those who dared to defend victims of state abuse.

Each story reveals a pattern: fabricated charges, coerced surrenders, manipulated hearings, and endless pre-trial detentions. The justice system, once a shield of rights, now functions as an arm of persecution.

The Anatomy of Fabrication

Behind every fabricated case lies a story of fear.

According to JMBF’s findings, the largest share of imprisonments arose from false charges of attempted murder (15 incidents, 103 victims) and murder (25 incidents, 43 victims).

These were not random choices—they were deliberate. Murder charges carry the heaviest stigma, branding lawyers as violent criminals and ensuring long detentions before trial. The government didn’t just want to silence these lawyers—it wanted to erase their credibility, to paint defenders of justice as enemies of peace.

Other common allegations—sabotage (8 incidents) and vandalism (9 incidents)—served as flexible tools to justify mass arrests. And then there are the colonial-era relics—seditious conspiracy and extortion—revived like old weapons from a dictator’s arsenal.

These laws once served imperial masters; today, they serve an interim regime that governs through fear, turning patriotism into sedition and dissent into treason.

Arrest as a Weapon of Fear

Among the 75 imprisonment incidents, 57 involved arrests leading to imprisonment, affecting 73 victims. These were not ordinary law-enforcement actions—they were public performances of power.

Lawyers have been detained from homes, offices, and even from courtrooms. The message is unmistakable: no one is untouchable.

JMBF’s data show this pattern across the country—murder, attempted murder, sabotage, vandalism, and “seditious conspiracy” cases repeated with numbing precision. Arrests have become a psychological weapon, designed to terrify not just individuals but the entire legal fraternity.

Each detention silences one voice—and intimidates a hundred more. Bar associations hesitate to meet; young lawyers choose self-censorship over survival. The courtroom, once a place of courage, now feels like a cage.

The Trap of “Voluntary” Surrender

Perhaps the most insidious tactic employed by the interim government is the manipulation of voluntary surrender.

JMBF documented 18 such incidents, involving 130 lawyers—many accused of “attempted murder” or “vandalism.” These were lawyers who followed the law, who appeared before judges when summoned. Yet, instead of receiving fair hearings, they were immediately remanded or imprisoned.

The ordeal of Advocate Abu Sayeed Sagar, former president of the Dhaka Bar Association and ex-Legal Affairs Secretary of the Awami League, epitomizes this tactic.

During the politically tense 2023 Supreme Court Bar Association election, a brief scuffle became the pretext for criminal charges. Sagar obtained six weeks of anticipatory bail from the High Court. Then, on 5 October 2025, he voluntarily surrendered before the Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court to renew his bail—a lawful and responsible act.
Instead of being heard, he was denied bail and sent to jail by Judge Sabbir Fayez.

This case shows how the Yunus-led regime has weaponized compliance itself. What should have been a routine legal procedure became a punishment for obedience.
Under Yunus, surrender no longer signifies respect for law—it is a trapdoor to imprisonment.

A Regime Built on the Ruins of Rights

The persecution of lawyers is not an accident—it is a blueprint of authoritarian control.

Since mid-2024, under the pretext of “transition,” the Yunus-led interim government has suspended civil liberties, silenced journalists, and targeted professionals suspected of political disloyalty.

The irony is unbearable: a man once celebrated for empowering the poor now presides over the imprisonment of those defending the powerless.

The Collapse of Judicial Independence

Every dictatorship begins by capturing the courts. The Yunus government has done one worse—it has hollowed them out from within.

Judges are pressured, prosecutors politicized, and bail hearings endlessly delayed. Lawyers are denied access to case files, while police fabricate evidence with impunity.

This is not merely domestic injustice—it violates Bangladesh’s obligations under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary detention.

When judges become instruments of fear instead of arbiters of law, the entire edifice of justice collapses.

Imprisonment as Preventive Repression

In this new Bangladesh, imprisonment no longer follows crime—it anticipates it.

Lawyers are detained not for what they did, but for what they might do. This is preventive repression—criminalizing potential dissent.

By incarcerating lawyers, the regime has effectively imprisoned the idea of justice itself. When defenders become defendants, a nation’s moral compass is lost.

The Human Cost

Statistics cannot capture the sound of a cell door closing on a lawyer who once argued for others’ freedom.

Many imprisoned lawyers languish in overcrowded cells, denied medical care, cut off from their families. Some have been beaten. Others have fled abroad, leaving behind shattered practices and broken lives.

In every courthouse corridor, fear now walks silently. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of intimidation.

The International Dimension of Betrayal

When Muhammad Yunus took charge, many abroad saw him as a reformer—a moral voice who would guide Bangladesh toward democracy.

But moral authority demands moral action. The mass imprisonment of lawyers is a betrayal not just of Bangladesh’s Constitution, but of international law and the ideals Yunus once symbolized.

Bangladesh is bound by the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), which guarantee that lawyers must perform their duties “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or improper interference.”

Under Yunus, every one of those principles has been broken.

The Erosion of Democracy in the Name of Transition

The government calls itself “interim.” But its methods are permanent tools of authoritarianism.

It claims to save democracy by suspending it; to ensure order by silencing dissent. History knows this lie well—from Chile to Egypt, every junta has claimed necessity as its moral cover.

Bangladesh today stands on that same precipice.

A Call for International Solidarity and Accountability

The time for polite diplomacy is over. The international community must see beyond the Nobel halo and confront the stark reality unfolding in Bangladesh, where lawyers are imprisoned for defending justice. Independent investigations by the UN and other human-rights bodies are urgently needed to document the systematic persecution of legal professionals. International legal associations should actively monitor trials and proceedings, recording every violation of due process, while governments must consider targeted sanctions, including visa restrictions and asset freezes, against officials responsible for repression.

Equally critical is the protection of at-risk lawyers, with states providing emergency visas and asylum to those facing imminent arrest. Silence or neutrality from global institutions, including Nobel committees and academic bodies, is no longer acceptable; it amounts to tacit complicity in the erosion of democracy and the rule of law. The world must act decisively to uphold both human rights and the integrity of the legal profession in Bangladesh.

When the Defenders Become the Accused

The mass imprisonment of lawyers in Bangladesh marks a moral collapse of governance.

By turning the courts into instruments of punishment, the Yunus-led interim government has criminalized justice itself.

Imprisonment has ceased to be a verdict; it has become policy.

Muhammad Yunus once preached empowerment. Today, his government practices suppression.

The world must judge him not by medals, but by the misery of those imprisoned for defending freedom. Because when the defenders of justice are silenced, it is not only lawyers who are imprisoned—it is the conscience of Bangladesh itself.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Far from empowering Muslims, Akbaruddin’s rhetoric is downright foolish.

In the complex and often combustible landscape of Indian politics, few figures have stirred as much controversy as Akbaruddin Owaisi—the younger brother of Asaduddin Owaisi, head of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a Muslim-centric political party with influence in southern and parts of northern India.

Akbaruddin became a national—and international—talking point in 2012 when a provocative excerpt from one of his public speeches in Nirmal, Telangana, went viral. In the clip, he is seen declaring: “If the police are removed for 15 minutes, we are 250 million and you are 1 billion. We will show you who is more powerful, who has balls.”

The statement was a blatant threat wrapped in communal arithmetic, referencing the Muslim and Hindu populations of India. The crowd erupted in applause. Shortly afterward, Owaisi was arrested on charges of hate speech, released on bail, and ultimately acquitted in 2022.

But revisiting this case solely as a legal episode misses the point. It is a revealing lens into the enduring toxicity of communal rhetoric in Indian politics—particularly within some segments of the Muslim leadership—where hate is no longer an outlier but a weaponized tool, used across the spectrum to polarize and provoke.

Hate Speech Is Not a One-Way Street

Akbaruddin’s speech stands as one of the clearest examples of hate speech by a Muslim politician in India. It was not vague or symbolic rhetoric aimed at resisting “Muslim oppression,” but a direct provocation against an entire (albeit imaginary) community—articulated through communal arithmetic: 25 crore versus 100 crore.

Ironically, the speech played right into the hands of those it ostensibly opposed. It gave the Hindu Right a moral and political tool: “If Muslim leaders can openly threaten us, why shouldn’t we respond in kind?” In that sense, Owaisi’s speech, like many instances where the idea of Muslim empowerment morphs into rabid communalism, deepened the communal fissures that the ruling dispensation now capitalizes on with its own stream of hate speeches.

Yet, here lies a deeper hypocrisy within sections of the Indian Muslim community. Many Muslims, in private conversations, while disagreeing with AIMIM’s political opportunism, tend to justify Akbaruddin’s words as a symbolic show of resistance—an assertion that “we will not take oppression lying down.” But symbolic resistance through hate speech is a double-edged sword. It only reinforces existing suspicions and increases hostility.

The Dangerous Myth of Communal Arithmetic

The core of Akbaruddin’s speech rests on a fundamentally flawed idea: that Muslims are a monolithic, homogeneous bloc of 25–30 crore standing against 100 crore Hindus.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Muslim community in India is deeply diverse and internally fractured—across sects, castes, regions, and languages.

Sunni–Shia, Deobandi–Barelvi, and Ashraf–Ajlaf–Arzal divisions are an open secret. The imagined “25 crore Muslims” myth collapses the moment these internal differences are acknowledged—which, in the age of Hindutva, seems conveniently forgotten.

Likewise, the notion of “100 crore Hindus” is equally imaginary. Caste, regional, and linguistic divides among Hindus remain sharp and visible, only temporarily papered over by the Hindutva project. Communalism gives life to these mythical numbers because communal politics thrives on binaries—usually imaginary, always forced.

When Akbaruddin says “15 minutes without police,” he frames the state—particularly the police—as the central oppressor during pogroms. There is some truth to this. The history of riots, from Nellie (1983) to Delhi (2020), shows police complicity or selective inaction. But his imagined scenario is suicidal. If the police disappear and the battle is framed as 30 crore versus 100 crore, it effectively calls for Muslims to engage in self-annihilation.

Three Hindus for every one Muslim—Owaisi’s way of calling for suicide reminds one of the now-famous meme: “Marwana ka tareeqa thoda casual hai.”

Far from empowering Muslims, Akbaruddin’s rhetoric is downright foolish.

The Responsibility to Condemn Across the Board

Akbaruddin Owaisi has made many such remarks, including derogatory statements about Hindu gods—calling them “manhoos” (inauspicious). Imagine if any Hindu politician had used even mildly similar language for Allah or the Prophet—the reaction from Muslims and the media would have been explosive. This asymmetry in moral outrage is dangerous.

It is also telling that his elder brother, Asaduddin Owaisi—otherwise vocal in dissecting Hindu right-wing hate speech—has never meaningfully condemned his brother’s 2012 remarks. This selective silence undermines the moral standing of anyone claiming to fight hate.

If Muslims wish to oppose Hindutva hate speech with credibility, they must also hold their own leaders accountable. Tacit approval or silence emboldens hate-mongers from within, leaving ordinary Muslims to face the consequences of fires lit by their ‘leaders.’

Communalism Is a Two-Edged Sword

The truth is stark: speeches like Akbaruddin Owaisi’s do not protect Muslims. They further communalize Hindus, provide ammunition to the ruling party, and push India’s already fragile social fabric closer to collapse.

Muslims must therefore develop a politics rooted not in reaction, but in principled opposition to all forms of hate. That essentially means condemning both Hindu and Muslim hate speech—without excuses, without bias.

The flames of hate consume the weakest first. Those who light them rarely burn. Let us never forget: hate can never be fought with hate.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Bangladeshi democracy has always been a bit of a balancing act—it’s fragile, often disputed, and shaped by deep mistrust among the parties involved.

Yunus stepped in like a hero after Sheikh Hasina’s narrow safe exit. Seriously, why Yunus though? Sure, that Nobel Prize glow—“banker to the poor,” all very inspirational. But running a whole country? That’s a bit out of his usual comfort zone, isn’t it? Critics aren’t buying his résumé for democracy. He’s got a squeaky-clean political record, yeah, but there’s the tiny problem of zero political success, too.

Did any of that bother the crowd of fired-up July protesters celebrating him? Or the business bigwigs who just wanted things to stabilize for a minute? Doubt it. People were desperate for any kind of shake-up. Someone new. Yunus just fit through the vibe—calm, politically unknown, totally untested on the big stage. Yunus on many occasions on International and National Media, claimed he or his cabinet has no plans to ban Awami League. He has gone to the extent that it is up to Awami League if they want to participate or not, yet Awami League activities were repressively banned without any referendum.

Islamists, NCP stage ‘Mist Spray’ protest in Summer to ban Awami league?

Awami League-oldest, secular, the party that led Bangladesh to freedom. But now, its legacy is questioned. Sheikh Hasina, the longest serving female Prime Minister, once stood in parliament and called Yunus the “Blood Sucker of the poor”. Now, the tables have turned. The UN’s fact-finding report blamed Hasina, her party, and security forces for the deaths of at least 1,400 people during the 2024 protests-children among the victims, crimes against humanity, said the report. Awami League pushed back: the report lacked their side, relied on unnamed witnesses and many more accusations. But who listens to the Awami League now? The UN’s word carries more weight, its credibility unshaken in the global court of opinion.

Protests went on for days, with people demanding that the Awami League be banned. The crowd was a bit of a weird mix — Islamists like Mufti Jasimuddin Rahmani, Asif Adnan, Hizbut Tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Hefazot-e-Islam all shouting for the party to be shut down. Some wondered if this was a real uprising or just a show put on by the government. Some said the ultimatum to Yunus wasn’t genuine, just a way to make the ban look legit.

Yet, Yunus, now acting as the caretaker, ordered a gentle mist spray at the summer camps — basically keeping the protesters hydrated, not firing bullets. Did that cool things down or just buy some time? The protesters weren’t all in agreement about singing the National Anthem. Some felt uncomfortable with singing it because it was written by Rabindranath Tagore, many referred to him as Hindu despite him being from the Brahma Samaj. The protest interestingly wasn’t joined by BNP, other centrist, leftist parties but the newly formed student party NCP looked like they were a cover to the Islamists.

Is Banning Awami league a legitimate move?

Some argue that banning the Awami League because, as the ruling party, it ordered killings and human rights abuses—many of its members carried out these acts—seems understandable on some level. However, doing so amounts to punishing the party collectively, which is problematic. International human rights laws and criminal justice principles emphasize that responsibility should be based on individual actions, not on group membership. Punishing the entire party ignores this important rule and can lead to more harm. History shows that punishing groups doesn’t stop violence; instead, it often fuels cycles of revenge, pushes authoritarian measures, and weakens efforts for real justice and reconciliation in transitioning societies.

Comparing Bangladesh’s current situation to transitional justice processes in places like South Africa after apartheid, Liberia following its conflict, or Bosnia is not quite accurate. Those scenarios involved extreme events like genocide, ethnic cleansing, or civil war. While Bangladesh faces serious challenges, it doesn’t meet the legal criteria for mass atrocities to that extent that would justify drastic measures like dissolving political parties. Even in those extreme cases, restrictions on political participation were used sparingly, temporarily, and often with international oversight or as part of negotiated agreements. So far, Bangladesh hasn’t experienced the kind of broad consensus or legal process needed to meet that high threshold. Also, frameworks like South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission were designed specifically for their contexts and weren’t meant to be general models for banning political parties in countries trying to rebuild democracy after authoritarian rule.

The UN Fact Finding report also simply mentions that elements connected to the party actively supported the repression. This makes you wonder: how much was the party involved in the violence? Recommendation 370 of the Office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Fact Finding report into the Bangladesh July/August killings state to refrain from banning political parties that would undermine genuine return to a multi-party democracy. Although, the report doesn’t qualify as a legal verdict, yet the report was unjustly cited by the interim to oppress, torture, imprison and attack on Awami League activities. The attacks happened with both law enforcement and mobs, sometimes through a mixture of both. After the forced resignation of Chief Justice through forced anarchy inside court premises and treating Awami League activists without ‘Innocent until Proven guilty’ shows the reality. The fairness of judiciary and trials are being questioned, many believe the verdict is ready and interim is just buying time for retribution.

The Amendment to repressive Anti-Terrorism Act

The newest update to the Anti-Terrorism Act really hits hard against free speech and the right to protest. First off, now the government can ‘temporarily suspend’ any group they suspect of being involved in terrorist activities, on top of their previous power to ‘prohibit’ an organization under Section 18. These powers, which previously only applied to prohibited groups under Section 20, now extend automatically to those that are suspended.

This means they can shut down offices, freeze bank accounts and assets, stop members from leaving the country, seize belongings, and even ban any public support or displays of solidarity for the group. Basically, the government can now quickly neutralize a party or organization with just a ‘temporary suspension,’ without having to go through the more permanent ‘prohibition’ process. But here’s the catch—how long does a ‘temporary’ suspension last? The law doesn’t say so, so in practice, it could go on forever, even if they call it temporary.

On top of that, they’ve massively expanded their power to prevent people from supporting or advocating for these groups under Section 20(e). It now clearly states that publishing statements, promoting online or through social media, or organizing marches, meetings, or press events in favor of or supporting the group is strictly forbidden. It’s an alarming step up in control, with serious implications for anyone speaking out or showing support.

Why Banning without referendum?

The Awami League, Bangladesh’s oldest and most influential party, was banned by the interim government without holding a referendum, even though surveys by Voice of America and others showed that most Bangladeshis didn’t support such a ban. While the interim authorities justified this move by citing the Anti-Terrorism Act and mentioning ongoing investigations into alleged crimes by Awami League leaders, they didn’t seek any direct public approval or hold a plebiscite. This has raised questions about whether the move really reflects democratic legitimacy.

Although the Awami League has faced serious accusations of electoral misconduct in the elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024, it has previously won allegedly free elections under caretaker governments, which shows it has broad support. In this case, it seems to be a victim of exclusion by an interim administration that has never gone to the electorate, not even at the local council level.

Gloomy path towards transition

Bangladeshi democracy has always been a bit of a balancing act—it’s fragile, often disputed, and shaped by deep mistrust among the parties involved. The accusations against the Awami League, whether it’s about election rigging or acting too heavy-handed, aren’t something new; they reflect a broader political culture where holding onto power sometimes seems more important than following the process.

Under the ban, millions of Awami League voter’s political rights are pretty much gone. Any kind of support for the Awami League—whether you say it out loud, write about it, or post online—could be considered a crime. Even just social meetings peacefully with other supporters might get you arrested. Prior to the ban, Bangladesh recently went multiple notches downward in the democratic index by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Taha, a vocal critic of the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, said the world is repeating the same mistakes that allowed Osama bin Laden to rise unchecked—this time, in places like Sudan and Gaza.

“The Houthis are now training members of Hamas and jihadists in Sudan to use drones,” Taha revealed. “They have access to Iranian drone technology, and it’s only a matter of time before they choose to strike—maybe tomorrow, maybe years from now. But it’s dangerous if we don’t deal with it.”

His comments come amid heightened concerns over drone warfare being deployed by non-state actors across the Middle East and Africa, as Iran continues to export advanced weaponry and ideological influence through its proxy networks.

A Growing Danger in Sudan

Taha expressed particular concern over Sudan, where, according to his claims, militant groups are preparing for larger-scale attacks using drone capabilities gained through Houthi and Iranian training programs.

“We are just waiting for another Bin Laden to grow in Sudan—to carry out another 9/11,” he warned. “And that’s exactly what’s happening. The world is waiting again.”

The political scientist criticized the international community, particularly Western nations, for ignoring early warnings and failing to act decisively against groups operating under religious or humanitarian cover.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the West

Taha also highlighted the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, calling them the “ideological engine” behind many extremist movements. He applauded the UAE and other Gulf nations for formally banning the group and classifying it as a terrorist organization.

“Countries like mine, the UAE, have banned the Muslim Brotherhood and spoken clearly to the West about the dangers they pose,” he said. “But unfortunately, many of these extremists now operate freely in the West—masquerading as activists, lawyers, or human rights defenders.”

In a controversial segment, Taha referred to specific cases in the United Kingdom, where individuals with extremist ties allegedly defended criminals, including those involved in sexual abuse cases, under the guise of political or religious victimhood.

“When people speak out against these crimes, they’re called Islamophobic,” he said. “That is not Islam. Rape, terrorism, and criminal acts do not represent Islam or any religion.”

He stressed the need for freedom of speech to be protected when addressing such issues, warning against censorship disguised as tolerance.

“British citizens have every right to criticize these radicals. That is not Islamophobia; that is truth. But they [extremists] use the label to silence dissent.”

A Call to Action

Taha’s remarks also took aim at figures like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other leaders whom he accused of using religion as a political weapon, while maintaining ties with Brotherhood-affiliated networks.

He drew parallels between the situations in Gaza, Sudan, Turkey, and even India, warning that the ideological infrastructure underpinning jihadist movements is transnational, and that failure to counter it now could have catastrophic consequences later.

“Whether it’s my brother in the UAE or a citizen in India, we face the same threat. Letting this ideology grow unchecked puts all of us at risk.

Nonetheless, his message is clear: ignore the warning signs now, and pay a much higher price later.

Perhaps the most dangerous tactic employed by the Yunus government is the use of fabricated charges against lawyers in an attempt to discredit and neutralize them.

In an unprecedented and deeply alarming move, the interim government of Bangladesh, led by former Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus, has launched a systemic campaign aimed directly at the country’s legal community.

According to documentation from JusticeMakers Bangladesh in France (JMBF), since assuming power in August 2024, the Yunus administration has orchestrated an alarming series of politically motivated arrests, fabricated charges, killings, forcible possession of the Bangladesh Bar Council and other district bar associations, and physical attacks targeting lawyers.

Over 391 legal professionals are now facing false accusations such as murder and explosive explosions. More than 131 have already been arrested, some detained without charges solely for their professional activities and political beliefs, while many more have been subjected to abuse, threats, and harassment. What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated incidents, but a deliberate, orchestrated attack on the rule of law and the very independence of Bangladesh’s judiciary.

This unprecedented crackdown on lawyers, many of whom are simply fulfilling their professional duties, reflects the government’s growing authoritarian tendencies and its determination to quash any form of political opposition. In doing so, it poses an existential threat to the fundamental principles of justice, constitutional rights, and democratic governance in Bangladesh.

Arrests and Arbitrary Detentions: The Systematic Repression of Lawyers

The Yunus government has weaponized the arrest and detention of lawyers as a tool of political repression. The arbitrary arrests, often conducted under the cover of night, are carried out without regard for due process and with complete disregard for human rights and the legal protections that should be afforded to all citizens. These actions are meant to send a clear message to the legal community: dissent will not be tolerated.

On April 7, 2025, Barrister Turin Afroz, a former ICT prosecutor, was arrested from her home, only months after surviving a brutal physical assault by unknown assailants. The attack on her was never investigated, and now she is facing arrest in what appears to be retaliation for her legal work. Other prominent figures, such as Advocate Khan Md. Alauddin and Advocate Rezaul Karim Khokon, have similarly been targeted in politically motivated arrests aimed at silencing those who dare to speak out or represent clients from opposition groups.

The arbitrary nature of these arrests was further highlighted on April 6, 2025, when 84 pro-Awami League lawyers were thrown into jail after a Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge overruled anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. This flagrant violation of established legal procedures not only undermines the judiciary’s independence but also exposes the government’s determination to bend the legal system to its will, regardless of constitutional guarantees.

Many of these lawyers are held without charges, often denied access to legal counsel and forced to endure harsh conditions in jail. They are also treated inhumanely, with their hands cuffed behind their backs. This behavior is in direct violation of Bangladesh’s constitutional protections and international human rights standards. The clear intent behind these arrests is not to administer justice but to intimidate and silence a professional community that has historically been one of the strongest defenders of democratic rights.

Fabrication of Charges: A Political Witch Hunt

Perhaps the most dangerous tactic employed by the Yunus government is the use of fabricated charges against lawyers in an attempt to discredit and neutralize them. By leveling baseless accusations such as murder, explosives, or assault, the government not only attacks individual lawyers but attempts to delegitimize the entire legal profession as a whole.

On February 12, 2025, 32 lawyers were falsely accused of attacking student protesters in Comilla—a charge entirely fabricated to undermine opposition voices. Similarly, in February 2025, 144 pro-Awami League lawyers were falsely implicated in an assault and attempted murder case linked to protests from the July movement. These false charges are not isolated incidents but part of a pattern of politically motivated persecution designed to punish those who dare to challenge the status quo.

In November 2024, 70 lawyers from Chattogram were falsely charged under the Explosives Act, a draconian law that permits severe penalties. Eleven other lawyers were implicated in the death of a street vendor, despite a complete lack of evidence to link them to the crime. These fabricated charges not only violate the fundamental rights of lawyers but also serve as a calculated strategy to suppress opposition and silence political dissent.

The Yunus government has clearly weaponized the justice system for political purposes. It sends a chilling message to the legal community: challenge the government, defend political dissidents, or even represent those the government dislikes—and you will face fabricated charges that could ruin your career, imprison you, and destroy your reputation.

Physical Attacks and Intimidation: Cultivating Fear Among Lawyers

The Yunus government’s attack on the legal profession is not limited to arrests and fabricated charges. There has been a disturbing rise in physical violence aimed at intimidating lawyers into silence. Such acts of brutality serve to create a climate of fear and compel legal professionals to think twice before representing clients that may be seen as politically sensitive or opposition-affiliated.

In March 2025, three prominent lawyers from Jamalpur were brutally attacked while performing their professional duties. Similar violent incidents have occurred at various courts, with lawyers like Morshed Hossain Shaheen and Sheikh Farid subjected to mob violence in Dhaka. In August 2024, Barrister Ashraful Islam was stabbed in the Supreme Court Bar Association building—a brazen act of violence meant to send a clear message to all lawyers: if you challenge the government’s actions or defend political dissenters, you risk your safety.

These incidents of physical violence are not random acts; they are part of a deliberate strategy to suppress opposition and instill fear. Lawyers are increasingly reluctant to take on cases that challenge the government’s position or represent opposition figures. The result is a paralyzed legal community unable to perform its crucial role in upholding the rule of law.

Killings: The Ultimate Form of State Terror

The attack on Bangladesh’s legal community has escalated to the point where the lives of lawyers are at risk. In April 2025, Advocate Sujon Mia, a former student leader and a member of the Moulvibazar District Bar Association, was brutally stabbed to death by a group of youth miscreants. It is alleged that he was killed because he represented politically motivated accused individuals affiliated with the Bangladesh Awami League and its associated wings in court.

Earlier, on August 5, 2024, young lawyer Nayan Sheikh, affiliated with the Bangladesh Awami League, was fatally hacked to death at his home in Bagerhat, following the fall of the previous Awami League regime.

On November 26, 2024, lawyer Saiful Islam, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, was killed during a clash in Chattogram involving supporters of Hindu leader Chinmoy Krishna Das Brahmachari, police, and BGB forces. These killings represent the ultimate form of repression, aiming not only to eliminate outspoken legal professionals but also to instill a pervasive fear that further discourages any form of resistance.

Electoral Obstruction and Democratic Sabotage

The Yunus government has also taken steps to obstruct the democratic process, particularly within the legal community. These efforts have included direct interference in bar elections to ensure that only those loyal to the regime are allowed to hold key positions. As soon as the Yunus government took power, the Bangladesh Bar Council office was forcibly taken over by unelected pro-BNP-Jamaat lawyers, along with the Dhaka Bar Association and Khulna Bar Association offices.

On April 10, 2025, in Chattogram, pro-Awami lawyers were barred from collecting nomination papers for the Bar election, a blatant attempt to prevent any opposition from gaining power within the legal profession. This incident is part of a broader pattern of electoral obstruction across the country, as seen between January and March 2025, when lawyers affiliated with the ruling coalition were forcibly prevented from contesting bar elections in Rajbari, Naogaon, and Sirajganj. In Dinajpur, 13 candidates were disqualified on purely political grounds.

Such actions are a direct assault on democratic processes, as the ruling regime seeks to eliminate any independent voices within the legal community. By controlling the electoral process within the Bar, the Yunus government is ensuring that no opposition remains within the structures that could hold it accountable.

A Descent into Authoritarianism

The systematic targeting of Bangladesh’s legal community is not just an attack on individual lawyers—it is an attack on the very pillars of justice, democracy, and the rule of law. Under the Yunus administration, the government has steadily shifted towards authoritarianism, systematically dismantling the democratic structures that have historically held the state accountable.

The legal profession, with its long-standing ties to the opposition and its role in defending human rights and political freedoms, has become a primary target. The Yunus government understands that by silencing lawyers, it can eliminate the last remaining check on its growing authoritarian tendencies. This attack on the legal profession is part of a broader strategy to eliminate all sources of opposition and dissent. With the legal community neutralized, the Yunus government would be free to govern without scrutiny, accountability, or restraint.

The International Community Must Act

The international community must not stand by idly while the legal profession in Bangladesh is systematically dismantled. It is imperative that foreign governments, international legal bodies, and human rights organizations come together to hold the Yunus government accountable for its actions. Sanctions, travel bans, and other diplomatic measures should be considered to signal that the international community will not tolerate such blatant violations of human rights and the erosion of judicial independence.

Bangladesh’s legal community plays a critical role in defending the rights of citizens, ensuring justice, and holding the government accountable. If left unchecked, this attack on lawyers will not only destroy the independence of the judiciary but also undermine the foundations of democracy in Bangladesh. The world must take action to prevent this authoritarian descent from further dismantling the very fabric of the country’s democracy.

A Call for Resistance

The assault on Bangladesh’s lawyers is an assault on democracy itself. It is a calculated attempt by the Yunus government to consolidate power and eliminate any form of dissent. The targeting of lawyers—through arrests, fabricated charges, physical violence, and killings—is a deliberate strategy to weaken the legal profession and undermine the democratic principles upon which Bangladesh was built.

The people of Bangladesh, along with the international community, must stand in solidarity with the legal profession and demand an immediate end to this repressive campaign. The future of Bangladesh’s democracy hangs in the balance. If the legal profession is silenced, if the rule of law is further eroded, the very foundations of the nation’s democracy will crumble.

The time to act is now. The legal community, civil society, and the international community must rise together to defend justice, human rights, and democracy in Bangladesh before it is too late.

Advocate Shahanur Islam is a Bangladeshi Human Rights Lawyer and Laureate 2023 of the French Marianne Initiative for Human Rights Defenders. Currently, he is working as the Founder President of JusticeMakers Bangladesh in France (JMBF).

Featured Image is AI-Generated.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism.

The New York Times published a report titled “As Bangladesh Reinvents Itself, Islamist Hard-Liners See an Opening,” detailing the rise of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh during political changes. The report discusses how religious extremists are taking advantage after the removal of former leader Sheikh Hasina. 

It highlights incidents like bans on women’s soccer and public harassment of women who do not follow conservative dress codes. 

There have been rallies demanding the death penalty for actions seen as blasphemy. The report notes that some Islamist groups, including previously banned ones, are pushing for stricter religious rules in the government. 

Officials are working on a new constitution that might change secularism to pluralism. This shift is causing concern over weakening democratic values and increasing risks for women and minorities.

Bangladesh used to be known for its secular roots and cultural diversity, but in recent years, extremist ideas have been resurfacing. Although this isn’t an entirely new foundation, it has become more noticeable and concerning since 5^th of August 2024.

Extremists are attacking secular bloggers and targeting women’s sports and cultural events. Their goal is to impose strict religious views or a political caliphate on a society that values diversity. This rise in extremist actions is worrying because it threatens freedoms, especially those of women and minorities, and poses a danger to the country’s democratic setup. 

A particularly troubling aspect is the attack on women’s rights to participate in public life. For example, some women’s football matches had to be cancelled because of threats from extremist groups. This shows how these groups are trying to take over spaces that were once empowering for women. Sports provide young women with opportunities to move up socially and gain international recognition, but these are now under threat. 

Such actions not only limit their dreams but also send a negative message about the shrinking space for women in public and professional life. It reflects a broader aim to suppress women’s rights under the guise of religious morality, harming the progress made in gender equality over the years.

Lifting bans on Islamist political parties like Jamat-e-Islami and freeing extremists like Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani known as the Anwar Al Awlaki of Bangladesh, give these groups more confidence. While the interim government might claim these actions are part of a broader peace strategy, they risk legitimizing extremist ideas and giving them a platform to grow. 

Inadequate systems to monitor released extremists make the situation worse, providing spaces for radical elements to regroup and plan for something like the meticulously planned October 7^th Attack orchestrated by Hamas. 

Meanwhile, a banned organization like Notorious Hizbut Tahrir openly propagated their influence and participation in Anti-Quota protest which for them was a tactical Jihad to oust the exiled Government and get a step ahead for their future plan of implementing a Caliphate. 

This political leniency by Interim Government weakens public trust in governance and helps extremist narratives spread, they have made few arrests while the extremist leaders are free and that questions if arresting the activists while ignoring the leadership is a soft ploy to leverage a tactical narrative. 

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism. Attacks on Sufi shrines and other minority religious sites highlight an increase in intolerance. These aren’t isolated events but part of a plan to make all of Bangladeshi society conform to strict ideological rules. 

Targeting cultural figures, authors, and artists underlines this trend, aiming to silence voices of dissent and alternative perspectives. Such actions threaten Bangladesh’s rich culture, traditionally a mix of diverse influences. We must also consider socio-economic factors driving this phenomenon.

Poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education create conditions where extremist views can take root. Young people, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, often join these movements seeking a sense of identity, purpose, or community. 

Extremist groups exploit these vulnerabilities using targeted propaganda and recruitment strategies, often through social media. Addressing these foundational issues requires comprehensive policies that promote inclusive development and foster social unity. 

Political Researcher and former Pentagon Official Michael Rubin, in a US Congressional briefing highlighted the growing concern of Radicalization in Bangladesh and opinionated an article ‘Is Bangladesh the Next Afghanistan’. 

Rubin is worried about how Noble Laurate Yunus is leading because it seems less tolerant than people expected. This is particularly true about how the government handles freedom of the press and different political views. 

Yunus is famous around the world for his work in microfinance, which helps poor people with small loans. He took charge of the interim government after Sheikh Hasina was removed from power. 

At first, many welcomed Yunus because they thought he would be different from Hasina, who was seen as too controlling. But Rubin thinks Yunus’s government is letting strict Islamist groups have too much power and is stopping people from speaking freely, which could hurt democracy. 

Rubin is especially concerned about the freedom of the press under Yunus’s rule. Some journalists, like Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed, have reportedly been brutally jailed on vague and ambiguous murder charges, raising fears about free speech in Bangladesh.

Over 1,000 journalists seen as “too secular” have reportedly been fired, showing a lack of tolerance for different opinions. Rubin also mentions problems faced by Julfikar Ali Manik, who reports on Islamist groups, and former Member of Parliament Fazle Karim Chowdhury, who works to protect minority rights. 

These issues suggest that Yunus’s temporary government might not be supporting the diversity and human rights that are important for democracy.

Increasingly, people are showing public support for Hamas, which is a growing concern. This support is visible in rallies and in the way some individuals dress to symbolize the group. 

Bangladesh, for many years, has had a clear stance against Israel. It has consistently supported Palestine through diplomatic efforts and has officially recognized only the Fatah-led government based in the West Bank. However, there is a noticeable rise in grassroots support for Hamas, especially in the wake of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. 

In this situation, extremists have spoken out against American interests in Bangladesh. Recently, some Islamists verbally called for aggressive protests in the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka. Along with Anti-India rhetoric, hatred for Trump’s America and Israel are seen. 

These tensions are fuelled by foreign policy support for Israel. The Interim Government was supposed to carry forward a Peaceful transition towards Democratic Election, while the reality looks, they have political interests to gain in the name of ‘reform’. 

Serving the interests, they are currently capitalizing on Islamists for majority support while being harsh and harsher on Secularists, Awami league activists, minorities and anyone associated with the 1971 Liberation war as tweeted by Lemkin Institute of Genocidal Prevention with multiple red flags. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Zahack expressed gratitude for the atmosphere in Saudi Arabia, where he believed differing opinions could be embraced without the fear of violent reprisals from radical extremists.

Indian counter-extremism analyst, Zahack Tanvir, who is based in Saudi Arabia, expressed relief at living in the kingdom rather than in the United Kingdom or France, stating that one no longer had to fear random radical extremists attacking individuals for their views.

Zahack’s statement ignited a discussion on the X-Platform (formerly known as Twitter) over differences in approaches to freedom of expression and security between Saudi Arabia and Western countries.

This came after an Algerian Salafi Imam Shamsi Aljazair was kicked and punched by a group of radical extremists in the United Kingdom, for his vocal views against Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood.

Zahack, a Geo-Political Analyst and Media Panelist, expressed gratitude for the atmosphere in Saudi Arabia, where he believed differing opinions could be embraced without the fear of violent reprisals from radical extremists.

In response, Abbasi concurred that many Muslim-majority nations, including Saudi Arabia, had a culture of accommodating divergent viewpoints in a brotherly manner. However, he highlighted the challenges faced in Western societies, where Islamists often had more prominent and vocal platforms, posing a potential danger to those expressing dissenting views.

The exchange on social media reflects the ongoing debate surrounding freedom of expression, religious tolerance, and the balance between security and individual rights. It raises questions about the varying approaches and challenges faced by countries with different cultural contexts and histories.

Saudi Arabia has made efforts in recent years to promote a more moderate and inclusive image, with initiatives such as the Vision 2030 plan and increased cultural exchanges.

In Western nations, the challenge lies in striking a balance between protecting freedom of speech and countering the influence of extremist ideologies. Islamist groups have indeed posed security concerns, with instances of radicalization and terrorist attacks prompting debates on the best strategies to safeguard both societal harmony and individual freedoms.

The differing viewpoints expressed by Zahack Tanvir and Mohammed Abbasi highlight the complexities surrounding these issues. It remains a continuing challenge for societies worldwide to navigate the delicate balance between fostering open dialogue, safeguarding security, and protecting individual liberties.