Human Rights Desk

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democratic governance. In a functioning democracy, citizens must be able to criticise government policies, question public officials, expose alleged wrongdoing and express political opinions without fear of retaliation. Recent developments in Bangladesh have, however, raised serious concerns about the shrinking space for open criticism and the possible use of state institutions against individuals who speak publicly against those in power.

A recent case involving content creator Salman Muqtadir has intensified these concerns. Following an attack and vandalism at his studio, Salman publicly criticised the government’s response and questioned the conduct of the Home Minister. Shortly afterwards, reports emerged that the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit had requested information relating to his bank accounts. Government agencies also reportedly conducted operations involving businesses connected to his father-in-law.

The authorities may have legitimate legal grounds for investigating financial or other alleged offences. Such investigations are not, in themselves, evidence of human-rights violations. However, the timing and sequence of the reported actions have raised concerns among journalists, lawyers and political observers. The key human-rights question is whether state authorities are applying the law impartially, or whether individuals who criticise the government are being subjected to heightened scrutiny because of their speech.

This distinction is critical. Law-enforcement and regulatory powers must not be used as instruments of intimidation or retaliation. Where an individual is suspected of wrongdoing, the state has a legitimate responsibility to investigate. But such action should be based on credible evidence, follow established legal procedures and remain independent of political considerations.

The wider impact of such incidents can be significant. When citizens observe a person publicly criticising those in power and subsequently facing investigations or official pressure, it may create a chilling effect on society. Journalists may avoid sensitive investigations. Content creators may refrain from discussing controversial political issues. Activists and ordinary citizens may become reluctant to express opinions that challenge the government.

Such a climate can gradually weaken democratic accountability.

Freedom of expression does not protect only speech that is comfortable or supportive of those in power. Its real value is demonstrated when unpopular, critical and dissenting opinions can be expressed without intimidation. A government committed to democratic principles should therefore distinguish clearly between legitimate law enforcement and actions that could reasonably be perceived as retaliation for political speech.

There are also broader institutional concerns. If bodies responsible for financial intelligence, taxation, law enforcement or regulation are perceived as being selectively deployed against government critics, public confidence in those institutions may be seriously undermined. Independent institutions are essential to the protection of human rights because citizens must be able to trust that state powers are exercised according to law rather than political interests.

The current situation therefore requires transparency and independent scrutiny. Any investigation involving a government critic should be capable of being justified on clear legal and evidential grounds. The authorities should also ensure that journalists, political commentators, content creators and ordinary citizens are not subjected to harassment, intimidation or disproportionate state action because of their political opinions.

A change of government should not result in a change of standards regarding fundamental rights. Political parties that previously demanded freedom of expression and democratic accountability must uphold those same principles when they hold power.

The protection of freedom of expression is not a favour granted by the government. It is a fundamental human-rights obligation. Democratic legitimacy cannot be measured only by elections or political authority; it is also measured by how a government treats those who disagree with it.

The authorities should therefore ensure that criticism is answered through evidence, transparency and democratic debate not through intimidation, administrative pressure or the perceived misuse of state power.

The fundamental test of democracy is not whether citizens are free to praise those in power. It is whether they remain free to question, criticise and challenge them without fear.