In recent development, the interim government of Bangladesh has already passed a law prohibiting the Awami League, the political body of the late former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The action has created havoc in Bangladesh and is attracting critical appraisal from the international political and human rights departments. From reports by other news agencies, the government effected the ban under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. According to them, the ban is essential to regain order and to take forward the ongoing legal investigations concerning the party’s former activities.

The ban is essential to regain order and to take forward the ongoing legal investigations.

A Government representative made a statement together with the declaration, stating that the ban will be continued during the period of the current judicial investigation. The advisor refused to lay out the precise nature of the charges, but it was implied that legal proceedings could go for the Awami League that allegedly sponsored or participated in acts detrimental to the country’s security. Such suspension, as the government explains, is aimed at becoming an essential, temporary security safeguard that ensures legal and security stability of the state during active legal processes.

Meanwhile, the interim regime has proposed a controversial amendment to the International Crimes Tribunal Act. This amendment to the law empowers the power to take legal proceedings against individuals and political parties, and institutions that are accused of committing crimes connected to the country’s history, which includes the 1971 liberation war and other happenings. The new amendment enables the government to charge political parties and institutions collectively if ground is made to believe of their involvement in war crimes or acts of terrorism.

The Awami League, a long-ignored and potent power in the country’s politics since independence, immediately repudiated the government’s doing. According to party leaders, the decision was de facto apolitical and was declared as being “illegitimate”. They argue that the ban takes to task a democratically elected group which has for long championed secularism, progress, and national solidarity. On their comments during a press conference, senior Awami League leaders labelled the move as “unconstitutional and maliciously conceived manoeuvre” to muzzle dissent and bring down the most potent opposition force in the country.

The move is an ‘unconstitutional and maliciously conceived manoeuvre’ to muzzle dissent.

This ban has prompted local as well as foreign critics of the interim government to raise gravely concerning about the possible negative outcome from the ban. Human rights groups, warned by critics, advise caution when using wide ranging anti-terror laws to muzzle a major party which may threaten democratic norms and breeding more political commotion. Such procedures are believed to be an invitation for future administrations to abuse the judiciary to stifle dissonance that can jeopardize not only civil liberties but legal order as well.

The opponents of the ban argue that all political forces should be held accountable under one standard. They point out that where the Awami League or one of its members is involved in serious misconduct, the state must seek justice. Furthermore, they declare that actual political maturity requires that the institutions be impartial, sometimes costing powerful leaders and established parties.

Currently, in Bangladesh, there are more internal and external pressures. Confronted with economic, sociopolitical pressures, Bangladesh is now operating in a fragile setting. Under these circumstances, it may be perceived that the interim government actions are making steps to support its hold and maintain the law and order. But counter arguments emerge which highlight that these can further divide the lines and push Bangladesh in further authoritarian direction.

Such procedures are believed to be an invitation for future administrations to abuse the judiciary.

There is a lot of interest from other countries in observing the dynamics of these actions. Local neighbours and large international players with power in the South Asian region have observed a low profile so far. Foreign affair and political commentators are watching the judicial track line with keenness to figure out whether the government’s action is a must or a decision with hidden political interests. The legal suit being pursued against the Awami League, one of the most powerful and enduring institutions in the region, has ripples oe far beyond the shores of Bangladesh, separating the South Asian order and maintaining democracy.

Sheikh Hasina, a long-standing Prime Minister responsible for the creation of modern-day Bangladesh has been silent about her feelings. Sheikh Hasina has been brought accolades from her economic policies, but her regime has faced accusations for authoritarian conduct. After legal review and officially suspended, the political fate of Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League is now questionable.

Bangladesh is now standing at the edge of History.

When justice takes place in courts, Bangladesh is now standing at the edge of History. The government’s response in the next period will bear great implications for the Awami League and the overall trajectory of democracy in Bangladesh. Only time will determine whether this turning point culminates in actual justice or imitates the risk of absolute political empowerment.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.