This report by CJA Executive Committee member WILLIAM HORSLEY prompted a swift response from the Bangladeshi government, who claimed that concerns about media suppression and arbitrary detentions in the country were being taken seriously, and that the allegation that the government was repeating the autocratic practices of the past was wrong. “Unlike in the past, there is no political mandate to imprison opponents,” it declared. Read the full statement from the Bangladeshi government at the end of this report.
June 20, 2025
Last week London provided an international stage for the Chief Advisor to the Bangladesh government and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Professor Muhammad Yunus, to present a positive account of his efforts to unite the nation and restore democratic rule during the ten months since the harshly authoritarian government of Sheikh Hasina was overthrown in a student-led uprising.
Prime Minister Hasina’s flight from Dhaka into India on 5 August last year was preceded by extreme acts of violence in bloody street clashes between police and anti-government protestors. After the government fell, police forces across the country were the target of widespread retaliatory violence. Many police officers were too afraid to perform their duties and law and order broke down for several weeks.
Political conditions in Bangladesh – the world’s eighth most populous country – remained volatile as Prof Yunus arrived in London on June 10 for a 4-day visit. Tensions between Dhaka and Delhi have contributed to the muted international attention paid to reports of the arbitrary suppression of political and legal rights that have allegedly continued under the interim administration led by Muhammad Yunus. On June 11, when Dr Yunus spoke at a packed meeting at Chatham House, he set out his plans for a 3-part political settlement, including sweeping reforms, the trials of those accused of wanton violence and killings during the uprising, and elections next year.
“People have never had so much freedom in their life … the media can say whatever they like.”
Muhammad Yunus
Questioned about persistent reports about a clampdown on the media at home, Dr Yunus flatly dismissed the suggestion. “People have never had so much freedom in their life”, he declared, adding “The media can say whatever they like”. That assertion is fiercely contested, however. While Professor Yunus deserves understanding and support for his efforts to fulfil the arduous task he was asked to take on, his brusque denial has not gone unchallenged. Critics describe a very different reality in Bangladesh from the one he described to his London audience.
A prominent journalist couple, Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed are among those who have been in detention ever since their arrests last summer. So are two members of the Commonwealth Journalists Association who were summarily deposed as senior media editors: they are Mozammel Babu and Shyamal Dutta, a CJA vice-president, who was also ousted as secretary-general of the Bangladesh National Press Club. All four face charges of murder and other anti-state crimes based on so-called First Information Reports which the detainees’ lawyers and family members maintain contain no material evidence linking them with the crimes of which they are accused. Yet reports say that no serious investigations have taken place into the alleged offences, the detainees’ applications for bail have been repeatedly and cursorily denied, and complaints against harsh prison conditions and restricted access to lawyers have gone largely unanswered.
A widespread retaliatory purge of media outlets sympathetic to the Hasina regime is clearly taking place. It has seen at least six journalists killed, dozens of media offices ransacked by mobs, hundreds of journalists summarily dismissed from their jobs and deprived of press accreditations, and many media houses forced to replace their owners. In January, lawyers for Rupa and Ahmed initiated complaints procedures to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Some argue that recent developments amount to a pattern of disregard for due legal process and basic human rights in Bangladesh that mirrors the hated practices of the former regime.
Dissenting voices barred
During his appearance at Chathem House Muhammad Yunus was challenged about the government’s insistence that the Awami League formerly led by Sheikh Hasina would, along with other dissenting voices, be barred from competing in national elections next spring. Was it not authoritarian to exclude from the political debate anyone who did not agree with the proposed “charter” for national unity? He replied that the Awami League should remain suspended until the trials of those who had committed “terrible crimes” – including the killings and forced disappearances of protestors and government opponents – had taken place.
That answer from Bangladesh’s interim leader is cold comfort for those who languish in prison insisting that their basic rights are being arbitrarily denied, and whose families fear that their fate is being ignored by the outside world. In that context, the failure of the British Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to meet Professor Yunus during his recent stay was a missed opportunity to express the UK’s strong commitment to the rule of law and universal human rights standards, while offering helpful but critical support to one of the largest member states of the Commonwealth.
The awkward silence of the Commonwealth itself, under its newly-installed Secretary General Shirley Botchwey, will be seen by some as a failure to re-assert the Commonwealth’s relevance — especially so soon after the adoption of a landmark agreement in the field of civil, political and media rights at the Heads of Government meeting in Samoa last October. In the Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media the Commonwealth heads of government unanimously and publicly accepted their responsibility to ensure a safe and enabling environment for media workers so they can work without fear of violence, abuse, intimidation, discrimination or interference.
Professor Yunus came to London to receive the ‘King Charles Harmony Award’ from the monarch in person for his remarkable contribution to socially responsible projects and poverty reduction. So it is ironical that the visit took place amid a pall of silence about alleged injustices and the selective denial of the most basic rights for journalists on account of their political sympathies under his authority in Bangladesh.
William Horsley is an Executive Committee member of the Commonwealth Journalists Association and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies.
Govt acknowledges “suffering of those falsely accused”
Two days after the CJA published the article detailing with the suppression of the media in Bangladesh, in the context of Muhammad Yunus’s visit to London, the Bangladesh government posted an official statement saying that widely publicised concerns about media suppression and arbitrary detentions in the country “must be taken seriously – and they have been”.
But, it asserted, “the narrative that the interim government is replicating the autocratic practices of the past” was mistaken. “Unlike in the past, there is no political mandate to imprison opponents,” it declared.
The statement went on to acknowledge that many cases before the courts, including those initiated by victims or families of those who suffered during the prior regime, were flawed or groundless. The government, it said, had begun the process of withdrawing 16,429 groundless cases, calling this “a major step towards restoring faith in the justice system and acknowledging the suffering of those falsely accused.”
The full text of the rejoinder is here:-
William Horsley’s recent account of Professor Muhammad Yunus’s visit to London and accusations that the interim government in Bangladesh suppresses press freedom mischaracterises a deeply complex political transition and underplays the efforts being made to build the rule of law in the aftermath of state-sponsored authoritarianism.
Following the ousting of the former regime amidst widespread civil unrest and documented abuses, the interim government, led by Professor Yunus, was established not through political intrigue but as a response to popular demand for moral authority, neutrality, and reform.
The government has begun the process of withdrawing 16,429 groundless cases — a major step towards restoring faith in the justice system and acknowledging the suffering of those falsely accused.
In his public address at Chatham House on June 11, Professor Yunus outlined a clear three-part agenda: restoring stability, pursuing justice for serious crimes, and preparing inclusive democratic elections.
These objectives reflect not a consolidation of power, but a commitment to return it — responsibly and fairly — to the people.
“Flawed or groundless cases”
Observers, even those sympathetic to Bangladesh and the aspirations of those who overthrew the autocratic regime, have cited concerns over media suppression and arbitrary detentions. These concerns must be taken seriously — and they have been. Yet the narrative that the interim government is replicating the autocratic practices of the past fails to acknowledge key differences in governance and intent.
Yes, there are numerous cases before the courts — many initiated by victims or families of those who suffered during the prior regime. Some of these cases are flawed or groundless.
The interim government has not ignored this reality. Unlike in the past, these prosecutions are not being directed or manipulated by the state. There is no political mandate to imprison opponents.
Instead, the interim government has instructed police and prosecutors to proceed with caution, evidence, and fairness. Judicial independence is being respected — and indeed, where it has previously been abused, the government is working to repair it.
“These cases, remnants of political vendettas, are being reviewed and dismissed … “
These cases, remnants of political vendettas, are being reviewed and dismissed where due process was absent. This effort reflects both accountability and compassion — and serves the broader goal of creating a fair and participatory political environment.
To those who ask why the government is not interfering in questionable prosecutions: we respond that it must not. To intervene now would be to mimic the playbook of the previous regime, where outcomes were pre-determined and political loyalty replaced justice.
The interim administration is determined not to repeat that mistake. Instead, reform commissions have been established for the judiciary and police, seeking to address the structural flaws that have long plagued Bangladesh’s legal institutions.
Society emerging from repression
Professor Yunus’s remarks in London — including his assertion that “people have never had so much freedom in their life” — may sound optimistic to some, but they are grounded in the experience of a society emerging from repression. It is not that everything is fixed — but rather that, for the first time in years, a genuine attempt is being made to disentangle justice from politics.
The selective detention and silencing of journalists, politicians, and activists under the former regime did not occur in isolation — they were enabled by legal frameworks and political interference. The current administration is working to undo that legacy, but change is difficult, and progress will not be linear.
The interim government has no illusions about the road ahead. But it is committed to making that road one that leads to lawful governance, political inclusion, and national healing. That is the promise of this transitional moment. And that is the responsibility it has accepted.
+-
