Bangladesh Weaponizes Crimes Tribunal to Silence Journalists Over Decade-Old Reporting
Dhaka — Two prominent Bangladeshi journalists are facing charges under the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) for reporting on a 2013 crackdown on protesters—a case that human rights organizations warn sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom in the country. Farzana Rupa, former chief reporter at Ekattor Television, and Mozammel Babu (previously identified as Mozammel Haque), the channel’s founder and former editor-in-chief, were rearrested on May 14, 2026, after a Dhaka court rejected bail applications in a case linked to the May 2013 violence at Shapla Chattar.
The Case: Reporting Becomes a Crime Against Humanity
The charges stem from Ekattor TV’s coverage of the May 5, 2013, crackdown on Hefazat-e-Islam protesters, when security forces violently dispersed an estimated 200,000 demonstrators. While the exact death toll remains disputed—ranging from official figures of 11 to activist claims of over 100—the prosecutor alleges the journalists’ reporting was “misleading” and “diverted attention” from the actual casualties.
According to court documents obtained by The Daily Star, prosecutors claim Ekattor TV’s coverage implied there were no fatalities, though the channel has never made such a claim. The tribunal’s move follows a pattern of targeting journalists under broad anti-human rights laws, with both Rupa and Babu already detained since May 2024 on unrelated murder charges.
“Editorial decisions on covering a contested political incident are not crimes against humanity. Using an international criminal law framework to punish journalists circumvents basic press protections under Bangladesh’s own constitution.”
International Outcry Over Judicial Weaponization
Human rights organizations have condemned the charges as a deliberate attempt to silence critical media. Amnesty International’s South Asia Regional Director, Smriti Singh, called the case “an affront to fundamental principles of press freedom,” noting that the ICT has a history of fair trial concerns and death penalty rulings that violate international standards.
The CPJ echoed these warnings, stating that the tribunal’s actions threaten Bangladesh’s democratic commitments, particularly its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of expression. The case also follows a broader crackdown on dissent, with at least 12 journalists jailed in 2025 according to Reporters Without Borders.
Understanding the International Crimes Tribunal
The ICT, established in 2009, was created to prosecute crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War. However, its mandate has expanded to include more recent political violence, raising concerns about its use as a tool for repression. Critics argue the tribunal lacks transparency and has been employed to target opposition figures, including former Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, who was also named in the current case.
Key Facts About the Case
- Charges: “Misleading reporting” and “diversion of public attention” from the 2013 crackdown.
- Detention Status: Both journalists remain in custody despite Rupa securing interim bail in six of nine murder cases.
- Next Hearing: June 7, 2026, for submission of the investigation report.
- Broader Context: Part of a pattern targeting media since 2024, with at least five journalists detained on similar charges.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s treatment of its journalists reflects a troubling global trend where authoritarian regimes exploit legal systems to silence dissent. The ICT case is particularly alarming because it:
- Retroactively criminalizes journalism: Charges relate to reporting from over a decade ago, setting a precedent for prosecuting past coverage.
- Blurs lines between crime and criticism: Accusations of “misleading” reporting could be applied to any media outlet covering controversial events.
- Undermines press freedom treaties: Violates Bangladesh’s obligations under the ICCPR and the 1995 Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression.
International observers warn that without intervention, this case could normalize the use of criminal law against journalists worldwide, particularly in countries with weak judicial oversight.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What evidence does the prosecutor have against the journalists?
Prosecutors allege Ekattor TV’s reporting “diverted attention” from the 2013 death toll by implying no casualties occurred. However, the channel has never made such a claim, and the tribunal has not provided specific evidence linking the journalists’ work to “crimes against humanity.”
2. Are these charges politically motivated?
While the tribunal claims the case is about justice, critics argue it targets journalists critical of the government. Both Rupa and Babu have faced harassment for their coverage of protests, including the 2024 July demonstrations. The timing of these charges—after years of detention on other cases—fuels suspicions of selective prosecution.
3. What can Bangladesh do to resolve this?
Human rights groups urge the government to:
- Drop all charges related to the journalists’ professional work.
- Release Rupa and Babu immediately.
- Reform the ICT to ensure fair trials and due process.
- Ratify and implement the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
4. How has the international community responded?
Organizations including Amnesty International, CPJ, and Reporters Without Borders have condemned the charges. The UN Human Rights Council has previously expressed concern about press freedom in Bangladesh, but no formal intervention has been made in this specific case.
What Comes Next?
The June 7 hearing will be critical, as prosecutors must present their case against Rupa and Babu. If the tribunal proceeds, it could set a precedent allowing future prosecutions of journalists for past reporting—a chilling prospect for media freedom in Bangladesh and beyond.
For now, the international community watches as Dhaka faces a choice: uphold its democratic commitments or further erode the foundations of press freedom. The outcome of this case will not only determine the fate of two journalists but could also shape the future of independent media in South Asia.
Related reading