Political significance of the passage of the ‘Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill’

The Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill was passed in the National Assembly on Wednesday. As a result, the ban on the activities of the Awami League and all its affiliated organisations was extended indefinitely. At the same time, the law has raised some concerns because it did not allow any discussion on the bill in parliament.

Last year, the interim government banned the activities of the Awami League and all its affiliated organisations by amending sections 18 and 20 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. The party’s student wing, the Chhatra League, was also banned in October 2024 under the same law.

A special committee in the current parliament had been formed to examine the orders and ordinances issued by the interim government. This committee had recommended that the ordinance in question, along with fourteen other ordinances from the interim government, should be passed in an amended form. However, to the surprise of the observers, the bill was passed without any changes. According to the rules, if the ordinance had not been passed by April12, it would have automatically expired. It is likely that this deadline prompted the presentation of the ordinance as a bill in parliament. This may also explain the haste with which it was handled.

Questions have now arisen because the new law, like the original ordinance, states that publishing or printing press statements on behalf of the banned organisation, or in support of it, as well as any kind of campaigning through the media, online platforms, social media or any other means, or organising processions, meetings, press conferences or giving public speeches, will all be prohibited. What will be the punishment for such actions? How will the courts judge such offences? Or will the same thing happen in this case, as the interim government has imprisoned thousands of Awami League leaders and activists for months without trial, in violation of the constitution and the law?

If this happens, what will become of the rule of law? Today’s Prime Minister and BNP Chairman, Tarique Rahman, who returned to the country after seventeen years, has promised on many occasions – in public receptions, press conferences and election manifestos – to establish the rule of law in Bangladesh.

I recall that on August 19, after the mass uprising, the human rights organisation SARDA filed a writ petition with the High Court seeking to ban the Awami League and cancel its registration as a political party for the killing of students and mass people. At that time, the then Attorney General and current Law Minister, Md. Asaduzzaman, clearly told the court that the petition should be dismissed. He stated, "The government will not curtail the power given in the constitution to run political parties. People have been victims of many injustices and injustices of the previous authoritarian government. There are laws and courts to try them. However... there is no scope to ban party for this" (Bangla Tribune, August 27, 2024).

The law adviser also told journalists that the actions of the Awami League over the past fifteen years did not reflect the party’s tradition. His statement was, 'There may be individual responsibility for these activities, there may be collective responsibility of the leaders, but I do not think it would be appropriate to ban the Awami League as a party' (bdnews24.com, August 28, 2024).

Several important leaders, including the BNP Secretary General, opposed the banning of any party through executive order and wanted the issue of the Awami League to be left to the judgment of the people.

It is true that the interim government banned the Awami League through the ordinance on May 11, last year, particularly in the context of the movements by Jamaat-e-Islami and its ally, the NCP. At that time, BNP leaders also expressed ‘satisfaction’ with the decision. But in the nine months that followed, what happened that caused the BNP to make a complete reversal on the question of banning the Awami League?

It is also true that after the ban was imposed in May last year, BNP leaders claimed that they had repeatedly asked the interim government to ban the party through a proper judicial process. Yet, while campaigning for votes in various areas during the February 12 elections, BNP leaders repeatedly said that they wanted innocent Awami League leaders and activists, who were not involved in any crime, to live normal lives and continue their political activities. At that time, Tarique Rahman said in an interview with Reuters that if any of Sheikh Hasina’s children, apart from her, wanted to return to the country and engage in politics, and if the people accepted them, he would have no objection.

It was not only BNP leaders who took this position. Did not leaders of Jamaat also court Awami League leaders and activists in various constituencies in the hope of securing their votes? They even claimed that it was the BNP that committed atrocities against Awami League leaders and activists after the mass uprising, while they themselves had protected those who were oppressed!

The reason for mentioning these points is that when political leaders keep changing their positions on important policy issues, the credibility of their politics comes into question and the entire political system risks becoming ineffective. When a state suffers from such double standards, its acceptance both at home and abroad decreases, and the system of governance falls into crisis. The previous Awami League government ruled the country with great power for a long time but eventually collapsed suddenly. Although the mass movement played the major role in its fall, the undemocratic methods that government used to deal with its opponents and critics were also very important.

The Awami League is not only the oldest political party in the country; a large section of the population is still its supporters and voters. Depriving such a large number of people of their right to express their political views with the stroke of a pen is not democratic in any way, nor is it a sign of wise governance.

This country has seen too much of the politics of attacking opponents after getting chance. It can even be said that this unhealthy style of politics has held back a nation that was born at the cost of immense blood and sacrifice. At a time when ending this kind of politics has become a demand of the age, the government party’s decision to move in the opposite direction and pursue a politics of revenge at all costs does not make sense. The BNP government is now facing crises from many sides. How it will handle these crises while continuing the politics of revenge remains a big question.

Writer: Saifur Rahman Tapan, Assistant Editor, Daily Samakal

The article was originally published in the print and online editions of The Daily Samakal and has been rewritten for the English version by Mohammed Humayun Kabir, Senior Sub-Editor.