Preventive Detention in Bangladesh:
A Contentious Power
Preventive detention, the practice of detaining individuals without charge or trial to prevent potential harm, remains a highly controversial legal issue in Bangladesh. While it aims to maintain security and public order, its application and potential for misuse raise concerns about due process and political repression.
Purpose and Use:
The Constitution of Bangladesh originally prohibited preventive detention. However, a 1973 amendment enabled the enactment of laws authorizing it. The primary law governing preventive
detention is the Special Powers Act (SPA) of 1974. The SPA empowers the government to detain individuals for up to six months, with the possibility of extension upon review by an advisory board, if they are suspected of:
1. Acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or security
2. Prejudicing the maintenance of public order
3. Prejudicing the interests of the state
4. Promoting enmity or hatred between different groups
The government argues that preventive detention is necessary to combat terrorism, organized crime, and other serious threats.
Misuse and Concerns:
Critics argue that the SPA has been misused extensively to target political opponents, activists,
journalists, and human rights defenders. The vague and broad language of the law allows for arbitrary detention, often without clear evidence or due process. Concerns include:
I. Lack of transparency: Grounds for detention are often not disclosed, making it difficult to challenge or defend against accusations.
II. Limited judicial oversight: The advisory board's review process is not independent and
lacks transparency, raising doubts about its effectiveness in preventing misuse.
III. Prolonged detention: Despite the six-month limit, individuals can be detained for longer periods through repeated extensions, effectively circumventing the initial timeframe.
IV. Chilling effect on dissent: The threat of arbitrary detention can discourage peaceful expression and political dissent.
''Preventive Detention in Bangladesh''
Case Analysis and Jurist Opinions:
Several cases highlight the potential for misuse. In the 2017 case of Dr. Muhammad Yunus, a renowned economist and Nobel laureate, the High Court deemed his detention under the SPA unlawful due to lack of evidence and procedural flaws. This decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the judiciary's inconsistent approach to preventive detention.
Many prominent jurists in Bangladesh have expressed concerns about the SPA. Former Chief Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman criticized the law's vagueness and its potential for abuse.
Legal scholars have called for amendments to strengthen safeguards and ensure judicial oversight.
Constitutional and Legal Framework:
Article 33 of the Constitution lays out safeguards for arrest and detention, including the right to be informed of the grounds for arrest, access to legal counsel, and judicial review.
However, these safeguards are weakened by the SPA's provisions.
Conclusion:
Preventive detention in Bangladesh remains a complex and contentious issue. While its intended purpose of maintaining security is legitimate, its potential for misuse raises serious concerns about due process and political rights. The vague and broad nature of the law, coupled with limited judicial oversight, creates fertile ground for abuse. Addressing these concerns requires a comprehensive review of the SPA and the implementation of stronger safeguards to ensure its application is truly necessary and proportionate.
Remember! This is just a brief overview of a complex issue in Bangladesh.
Written by Tarequl Islam Fahim - Student of LAW
0 Comments