Can You Talk About Awami League Anymore? Confusion Grows Over New Media Ban
Following a sweeping government notification banning all activities of the Awami League in Bangladesh, confusion is mounting over whether public discussion or media coverage of the party is still allowed.
On Monday, the interim government issued a gazette declaring that the Awami League, its wings, and affiliated organizations are prohibited from holding rallies, conferences, or any public event. This ban extends to publications, online or social media campaigns, and any form of promotion related to the party — until the completion of ongoing war crimes trials against its leaders.
This has sparked a nationwide debate on freedom of expression, with legal experts questioning how the government will define “supportive content” and who gets to make that judgment.
Despite the sweeping nature of the ban, a government statement later clarified that the order does not restrict critical analysis, legal commentary, or expression of opinion by the public or media — as long as such expressions do not appear in support of the banned organization.
However, many legal professionals remain skeptical. Sara Hossain, a senior Supreme Court lawyer and executive director of the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), raised concerns to BBC Bangla. “Who decides what is considered constructive or supportive? The law is vague and open to misuse,” she stated.
How the Ban Was Imposed
The ban stems from the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009. According to Section 18(1), the government can prohibit the operations of any entity accused of terrorist activities until trial proceedings are complete.
The notification alleges the Awami League was involved in mass killings, abductions, and other crimes against humanity during the July 2024 student-led uprising. It claims these allegations are supported by both domestic and international reports and are now being prosecuted in the International Crimes Tribunal.
This marks a historical turn, as previous bans using similar laws were imposed on groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2009 and Ansarullah Bangla Team in 2015. Notably, in 2023, the Awami League government itself banned Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing using the same legal provisions.
Can Media Discuss the Awami League Now?
Legal opinions remain divided. While the ban clearly prohibits publication or broadcasting in support of the Awami League, it does not explicitly outlaw neutral or critical reporting. However, the definition of “support” remains dangerously ambiguous.
Supreme Court lawyer Ahsanul Karim explained that general reporting is not barred, but if any statement appears to favor the banned entity, it could be considered a violation of the law.
Section 20(ঙ) of the Anti-Terrorism Act states that any press release, speech, or publication issued by or in favor of a banned entity is illegal. But again, the interpretation is open-ended. Can discussing the Awami League’s historical role in the 1971 liberation war be considered a violation? Experts say such grey areas must be clarified immediately to prevent misuse.
Concerns of Misuse Echo Past Abuses
The current situation draws parallels with how the Digital Security Act (DSA) was used during the Awami League regime. Despite protecting the spirit of the Liberation War, critics say the DSA was used to silence dissenting voices, including those discussing history.
“Back then, too, we saw people punished for merely discussing the war,” noted Sara Hossain. “Now, there’s a similar risk of arbitrary enforcement.”
The penalty for violating the current media ban includes imprisonment for two to seven years and financial fines — a serious concern for journalists, academics, and citizens alike.
What the Government Says
A late-night clarification from the Chief Advisor’s Press Wing reiterated that the media ban only applies to the banned political organizations and their members. It does not restrict general public discourse or analysis by individuals or other parties.
Yet, with no official guidance on how to interpret or enforce this rule, many fear a chilling effect on free speech, particularly on social media.
Experts Demand Legal Clarity
Several attempts to reach legal and government advisers, including Professor Asif Nazrul and Attorney General Mohammad Asaduzzaman, yielded no comment. Meanwhile, media professionals and civil society continue to call for transparent guidelines to protect constitutional rights.
As the dust settles on the controversial decision, one thing is clear: Bangladesh is entering uncharted territory in regulating political discourse, and how this plays out could have lasting impacts on democratic freedoms.
