Bangladesh's Interim Government: A Crisis of Justice in the Name of Democracy

DHAKA — In the aftermath of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was ousted from power in 2024, Bangladesh stood at a historic crossroads. Millions had poured into the streets demanding change. When Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus took charge of the interim government on August 8, hope briefly surged. But within months, observers say the country slid into an equally sinister pattern: a legal and institutional breakdown where the promise of democratic renewal has been replaced by judicial repression, emboldened extremism, and selective rule of law.

Weaponizing the Courts: From Reform to Reprisal

What began as a vow to deliver accountability quickly morphed into what many rights groups now describe as a politically charged purge. By May 2025, over 266 journalists were facing criminal charges—many under the Digital Security Act (DSA) and Cyber Security Act (CSA)—for covering or criticizing the government’s handling of protests and dissenting voices.

The Awami League (AL), once the ruling party, was officially banned on May 10, 2025 under Bangladesh’s Anti-Terrorism Act—a move condemned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for "undermining a return to a genuine multi-party democracy."

Simultaneously, courts have fast-tracked charges against former ministers and AL leaders for “crimes against humanity,” while Dr. Yunus himself had a six-month conviction overturned quietly by the High Court just one day before taking office.

Awami League’s perspective was echoed anonymously, who told us:

“This is not justice—this is political revenge in legal disguise. The interim government has hijacked the judiciary to do what it cannot justify democratically. These laws were never meant to silence political opposition, yet that’s all they’re doing today.”

Legal experts also argue this is not justice, but a breach of fundamental judicial norms. One senior advocate of the Supreme Court, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained:

“The selective use of laws like the Anti-Terrorism Act 2009 and Digital Security Act violates both Article 27 (equality before law) and Article 35 (right to fair trial) of the Constitution. What we are seeing now is a judiciary being wielded as a political weapon.”

Further troubling was the mass resignation of Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan and five senior judges on August 10, following public pressure from student leaders aligned with the new regime. While framed as a "reorganization," it has effectively installed executive-friendly justices and left the judiciary vulnerable to political influence.

Empowering the Extremists: Jamaat’s Return and a Dangerous Gamble

One of the most alarming reversals came on August 28, 2024, when the Yunus government lifted the anti-terror ban on Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh’s largest Islamist party, previously outlawed for links to extremism and war crimes.

In the days that followed, Mufti Jasimuddin Rahmani, chief of the banned al-Qaeda–linked Ansarullah Bangla Team, was released, alongside Brig. Gen. Abdullahil Azmi and Ahmad Bin Quasem, both suspected of ties to Pakistan’s ISI and Jamaat’s militant wing.

Since their release, these individuals have publicly rallied against secularism and demanded the continued ban on the Awami League. According to Netra News, Rahmani’s rallies directly preceded the government’s decision to outlaw AL, suggesting government capitulation to Islamist pressure.

The return of extremist voices has also sparked renewed attacks on minorities. In Cumilla, Hindu temples were vandalized, while Ahmadi and Buddhist communities faced harassment—echoes of the sectarian violence once suppressed under prior regimes.

Legislation as a Tool of Oppression

Rather than dismantle the authoritarian laws of its predecessor, the interim regime has expanded them. It introduced amendments to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, allowing tribunals to ban political organizations, a move HRW warns could violate international standards of due process and freedom of association.

The Enforced Disappearances Law, another bill pushed by the new administration, excludes past or systematic disappearances—letting those responsible for previous atrocities escape accountability. HRW criticized the bill as “a whitewash” that fails to meet international legal standards.

These legislative moves represent what HRW called a “structural reconfiguration of authoritarianism under democratic disguise.” Constitutional guarantees like freedom of association (Art. 38) and freedom of speech (Art. 39) are now routinely sidelined.

The International Community Watches—But Acts Little

Initially, the U.S., U.K., and EU welcomed Dr. Yunus’s appointment, hoping for stability and reform. However, as repression escalated, so did global concern. A joint statement from Amnesty International, CPJ, and Human Rights Watch in March 2025 urged the government to “guarantee the right to free expression” and cease attacks on journalists.

Still, no sanctions followed. The UNHRC’s February 2025 report condemned the judicial overreach and minority attacks, but implementation has stalled. India, notably, has stayed silent—choosing strategic proximity over democratic principle.

Manipulating the Global Narrative

The interim government has also struggled to contain international scrutiny. When The New York Times published an exposé warning of rising Islamist influence, it drew immediate rebuke from the administration. Government advisers claimed there was “no rise in militancy,” even as extremists marched freely in Dhaka.

A counter-editorial in The Business Standard admitted that mere rebuttals are failing, and warned the government must “proactively manage its international image with transparency, not censorship.”

Conclusion: A Judiciary in Ruins, a Democracy in Retreat

The evidence is stark: Bangladesh’s interim government has betrayed its promise of democratic renewal. Its justice system, far from independent, has been converted into a weapon—one that punishes dissent, shields insiders, and invites extremism into governance.

A retired senior judge, also speaking on condition of anonymity, offered this assessment:

“When courts become tools of executive power, democracy collapses in disguise. The resignations of top justices and the reshaping of the bench contradict Articles 94 and 116A of the Constitution. Without judicial independence, the Constitution is just ink on paper.”

As student protestors once chanted for a “New Bangladesh,” what they have received is an old pattern under a new face. The rule of law is not selectively applied justice—it is, by definition, universal. Until the Yunus government recognizes this truth, the cycle of repression will continue, and Bangladesh’s dream of democracy will remain deferred.

✍️ Report Prepared By: Fozla Rabbi Robna