Judicial independence, media freedom and Sheikh Hasina

This is a story about a recorded conversation that says a lot about judicial independence and media freedom in Bangladesh - or the lack thereof.

Bangladesh's justice system is based upon an important fiction. It is a fiction not  uncommon to many authoritarian governments. This is the idea that the country's courts operate independently from the executive.

Probably, few people in Bangladesh actually believe that fiction. Many are aware of the partisan way in which magistrates and judges are appointed; how the government moves magistrates around from one court to another court, one district to another one, as and when they require; or indeed the powers of persuasion and intimidation held by the executive which they use to ensure that magistrates and judges make the "right" decision. Of course, if they have already appointed highly partisan judges, then little persuasion and intimidation will be necessary.

This is not to say that every decision goes the Bangladesh government's way. In a non-totalitarian country, there remains some levels of autonomy and independence, and certain conduct and decisions is outside the government's control.*

Nonetheless, this fiction of judicial independence is constantly claimed by government ministers and of course by the courts themselves. It is an important fiction; at some level the judicial system cannot function unless people have some kind of belief in the judiciary's independence.

In the past, the media - or more accurately the small parts of the media which remained independent  - did sometimes prick holes in this judicial fiction. However, it is rare - as doing so risked prosecution for contempt of court. Now, with even less media freedom in Bangladesh, it is a brave or reckless editor that would publish such a story.

It is in any case difficult for journalists at the best of time to get solid evidence that a particular judicial decision was made as a result of executive interference.

Occasionally, however, comments from the mouths of ministers themselves give the game away. And one such moment came a few days ago in a telephone conversation between the prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her UK Awami League party leaders in which she refers to the question of whether  Khaleda Zia, the leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, currently in jail following conviction for corruption, will be allowed out of jail or not. The government of course have said that it is upto the courts - and the courts are not giving her bail pending appeal.

Yet, a recording of a conversation between Sheikh Hasina and Awami League activists suggest that it is not the courts that will determine what happens to the opposition leader. 

The prime minister arrived in London last Wednesday, on 1 May. As is customary, Awami League leaders and activists came to the airport hoping to meet her. Amongst those present were Sultan Shariff, UK Awami League president and Syed Faruq, the UK Awami League secretary.

The video shows Syed Faruq holding a mobile phone, with the speaker phone on, and the voice of Sheikh Hasina can be heard. It appears that Hasina was using a mobile phone belonging to Bangladesh's High Commissioner to the UK, as the name of Sayeda Muna Tasneem is shown on Faruq's mobile phone screen.

The person who filmed the conversation was Md Akkadus, an Awami League activist using Facebook live. The video is no longer posted on his Facebook time line.

Sheikh Hasina's voice can be heard loud and clear. At first she says this:

I will talk with you later after the surgery in my eyes. Please don’t crowd the hotel. Because you make such a crowd, no hotel wants to give us booking now. I will talk to you later at my convenience.

She then goes onto to talk about Tareque Zia, the son of the opposition leader Khaleda Zia

And, let the BNP know that if Tarique shows his arrogance with me, his mother (Khaleda Zia) will never be able to come out of jail in her lifetime. He must understand that nothing can be realized from Sheikh Hasina by force. Their (BNP) MPs have joined parliament today. They had some demands… treatment and others (of Khaleda Zia). We are ready to consider [that demand]. Many have met me in this regard, but as I come here now, if Tarique shows his arrogance over it, then I will tell them: ‘Sorry, your leader (Tarique) has misbehaved with me, has done such malicious act, I will not…" (emphasis added)**

Sultan Shariff, the UK Awami League president told this blog that "It was a simple conversation. She wanted to say thank-you for coming as she had not come to the UK for a long time."

However, it is pretty blatant that this was not a "simple" conversation - and that it suggests that the decision about Khaleda Zia's bail will be dependent on Sheikh Hasina and not on any independent judicial decision.

Equally noteworthy is that not a single media outlet in Bangladesh (as far as this blog can make out) actually reported on this conversation although this video was widely distributed. This is a reflection of the highly restricted media operating in Bangladesh these days - as noone would dare report on this conversation.

------------

* In addition, there are many decisions before the courts that the government does not care that that much about anyway. And, of course, there are some individuals/organisations outside the government which can themselves corrupt the system so that the courts rule their, rather than the government's, way.

** This translation was revised on Thursday 9 May.

The Daily Star, Padma Bridge and Canada's Federal court

Over a month ago, the Daily Star published a front page news article on a Canadian court decision dealing with the admissibility of wiretap evidence in a trial involving three men alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to corrupt a Padma bridge consultancy contract.

The Daily Star is one of Bangladesh's great success stories. It seeks to be an independent and fearless newspaper, and though it may not always succeed,  it often does, and for its efforts it has been roundly punished by the government - in advertising bans, attacks by the prime minister and her son, and an organised effort to file criminal cases against its editor.

On this occasion, however, the Daily Star failed to report independently or accurately about this judgement and gave further steam to a false narrative widely propogated by Bangladesh's governing party spokespersons - which has indeed now resulted in a High Court order seeking the establishment of a commission of inquiry. 

The Daily Star, media ethics and hypocrisy - 12 things you need to know

After a two month hiatus, the BangladeshPolitico blog is back .... and there is much to catch up with.

Lets first start with the big media story of the moment.

Just days before The Daily Star celebrated its 25th anniversary, its editor Mahfuz Anam was questioned on the ATN News* Television channel about the paper's role during the state of emergency that took place between 2007 to 2009.

See also: Four factual blunders by Sanjeeb Wazed in new Facebook post

               The increasing absurdity of the Mahfuz Anam affair

This was the period when - with a looming manipulated election on the horizon - the military took over, installed a civilian caretaker government, and remained in power over two years before holding elections that brought the Awami League back to power in 2009.

During this period, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, the leaders of the country's two main political parties were arrested (and placed in house detention) and charged with corruption - on the basis of evidence provided by other politicians and businessman who also had also been arrested in droves.

It looks like Mahfuz had no idea that he was going to be questioned about this matter - and one of his responses during the exchange has created a firestorm in the county.

7 things to know about the government's advert embargo

On Thursday, Al Jazeera published a report on how on 16 August 2015, Bangladesh intelligence agency officials had instructed telecommunication and consumer good companies from advertising in the country's two leading newspapers.

After you have read the article, as well as the full statement from Telenor (the majority shareholder of Grameen Phone), here are seven further things to understand about this situation.

1. Dont underestimate the significance of this attack on Prothom Alo and the Daily Star

Love them, or hate them, the Daily Star and Prothom Alo are the leading English and Bengali language papers respectively. In part, this is because they are centrist, independent from government and operate at arms length from their corporate owners - unlike much of the media here. In fact, the papers do share many of the current government's values relating for example to extremism, the 1971 war, the war crimes trials, and secularism. However, at the same time they are willing to report on governance failures - whether these relate to elections, corruption, or general mal-administrations, and these rile the government

The order by DGFI, presumably with the agreement of the powers that be in the Bangladesh government, to stop large companies from advertising in Prothom Alo and the Daily Star is a serious attempt to undermine the freedom of the media in Bangladesh. By throttling the papers' advertising revenue, the government is trying to bring these papers in line - so they no longer are the independent institutions, able to question and challenge the government through their reporting and investigative journalism.

Though there is a background of historic disagreements as to why parts of the government do not like these papers, this current attack on the papers is probably not just about settling scores. Members of the government think that Prothom Alo's reporting and journalism, which reaches many millions of people, can swing votes. This attack is about ensuring that when the next elections come, the government has beaten these papers into submission - and perhaps even to have them shut them down.

2. The silence of the media

What is particularly worrying about the current situation, is that not a word about the instruction has been reported in the country's newspapers or electronic media - not in the Daily Star/Prothom Alo, nor in other newspapers and TV media, although they are all fully aware of the situation.

'An instruction from the authorities': Full statement given by Telenor

Al Jazeera, yesterday published a report on the involvement of the military intelligence agency, DGFI, in instructing large telecommunication and consumer product companies from advertising in the country's two largest and most popular independent newspapers.

You can read the article here.

Telenor, the Norwegian parent company of Grameen Phone provided a statement to Al Jazeera, only part of which was reported in the article. Below is the full statement. It was sent by Tor Odland, VP, Head of Communications, Telenor Group in Asia

"Grameenphone, a company majority owned by Telenor Group, has along with several other large corporations, received an instruction from the authorities to stop advertisements in two leading newspapers in Bangladesh. As a result, Grameenphone has been unable to effectively maintain commercial communication with its customers via these newspapers. A significant number of steps have already been taken by Telenor and Grameenphone to limit the overall impact. This includes initiating a dialogue with the industry, investors, media partners and the authorities. These efforts will continue with the aim of resuming normal commercial activities with the newspapers as soon as possible."

Daily Star: In the government's cross hairs

To see articles on current political conflict in Bangladesh, click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important that journalists and those concerned with free speech and the independence of the media in Bangladesh support the Daily Star and in particular its editor Mahfuz Anam who are under attack for publishing a picture of a wall poster of the banned Islamic organization Hizb-ut Tahrir under the heading 'Fanatics raise their ugly heads again' along with a caption:

“Taking advantage of the current political crisis in the country accompanied by wanton violence, banned extremist Islamist organisation Hizb-ut-Tahrir published and pasted posters in the capital in an attempt to foment unrest within the armed forces. This poster was found pasted on a wall in an alleyway near Bangla Motor intersection yesterday.”

[Also read: Some Facts about the Editor Council's statement on Press Freedom]

First a lawyer lodged a case  against Mahfuz Anam and two journalists over the article suggesting that it was 'instigating' a breach of the peace, and a court on 15 February asked the police to investigate the matter.

Then three days later, on 18 February the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, was asked the following question in parliament:

"A nondescript poster in one corner of Banglamotor has been blown out of proportions on the pages of Daily Star. Carrying the poster of a banned outfit in the paper is surely helping it to propagate its cause."

And she responded, in the following way:

"We will move against those who help the Hizb-ut-Tahrir by publishing their posters in the paper …. "I don’t care whether they have written positively or negatively but by blowing up the visual image of this nondescript poster at a corner of Banglamotor which would have attracted no attention, the paper has helped the radical cause."

So much then for the independence of the executive and the judiciary!

Some facts about the Editor's Council statement on media freedom

Toufique Khalidi, editor-in-chief of bdnews24.com has recently written a vituperative article attacking a recent statement by Bangladesh's Editor's Council which had raised concerns about freedom of the media in country.

The article, 'Why I do not agree with the Editor's Council'  states that the Council's statement is 'a blatant example of hypocrisy, double standards, and personal agenda-driven exercise.' It is a very personalized attack, in which he states that he has 'no respect for some of these editors' some of whom he  argues have 'have never been professional journalists in the real sense of the term.' The final half of the article is just a stream of consciousness that deserves no serious attention, and is not directly relevant to the editor's council statement.

Khalidi's first set of concerns revolve around an apparent conflict of interest, since some of the members of the editors council are, he says, also shareholders of their papers, and are therefore members of the Newspaper Owners Association of Bangladesh (NOAB). This is an interesting point - but in the context of this statement made by the Editor's Council it is unclear what is the particular conflict of interest about which Khalidi is concerned. One could more appropriately allege that there was a conflict of interest had the editors not made a statement critical of the government (in order to protect their financial interests as owners) rather than making one, as they have done here.

Moreover, Khalidi's concern about editor's 'conflicts of interest' since they are also owners  would have had more force if he himself was not (and perhaps still is) a part owner of bdnews24.com whilst at the same time being an Editor-in-Chief of the website. At the bottom of his article Khalidi describes himself as the Editor-in-Chief of bdnews24.com, but perhaps he is actually writing as an owner of the company? **

Media coverage of parliament's first day

The front pages of Bangladesh's English language newspapers published on Thursday morning, the day after the first day of parliament, provide an interesting indication of how the media is likely to respond to the country's new government and in particular its parliament.

The editors of New Age, Daily Star and Dhaka Tribune have all been highly critical of the 'elections' calling them a 'farce' or using similar such descriptive language. (I have not followed the editorial lines of the Independent or the Sun, the other two relevant English language papers.)

Yet, apart from New Age*, you would barely know that there was any questions about the legitimacy of the new parliament.