BANGLADESH: Arbitrary arrest and detention of ten thousand people by the police across the country 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been informed that the police have arrested at least 10,000 common citizens in the space of only three days beginning on 2 February 2006. The arrested people, who are mostly low-income earners, were detained in different police stations and prisons across the nation. The people are now facing enormous problems due to the wholesale arbitrary arrest and detention.

In January 2006, the Alliance of the 14 opposition political parties of Bangladesh declared a long march programme to be started from different corners of the country followed by a grand rally in Dhaka on 5 February 2006. According to the instruction of the government, the police began arresting people en masse to create an atmosphere of fear for the supporters of the opposition political parties.

The AHRC has received information about this mass arrest in general, and the four following cases in particular.

Case one

Garment worker, Md. Khairul Islam was going to his factory at Arambag in the Motijheel commercial area on the evening of 3 February 2006 to work a night shift. When he came to the Kamlapur bridge, the Motijheel police arrested him and took him to the police station. The police then implicated Khairul in a theft case and produced him before a court.

The following morning, Khairul’s eighty-five-year-old blind father, Mr. Ratan Mian, learned the news. He went to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Dhaka to arrange bail for his son. The Court granted bail for Khairul. He then went to the gate of the Dhaka Central Jail to receive his son. However, the Jail authority did not release him for two days. The jail police claimed Taka three hundred more from Ratan, who had not a penny to spend, on condition of releasing his only earning son.

Case two

On 3 February 2006, at around 9pm, day labourer Md. Jalal Uddin went to a coaching centre to pay the tuition fees for his son. On his way back home the police of Ramna police station stopped him at Mogbazar crossing. The police arrested him without any specific reason and took him to the police station. He was detained in the Ramna police station for two consecutive nights despite the legal obligation of the police to produce each and every person before the court within 24 hours of arrest.

Jalal’s wife, Mrs. Lipi Begum, says that there was no case against her husband and that she does not know the reason for his arrest. When Mrs. Lipi went to the police station with her son and asked why her husband had been arrested and when would he be released, the police did not allow her to meet with her husband. She waited outside the building of the police station until 3am. She then had to pay Taka five hundred to an unknown man, introducing himself as a lawyer of Dhaka Bar, who assured her he would help her husband to get released. Mrs. Lipi, however, has not seen that man since. She does not know about the fate of her husband. If Jala is not released the whole family will remain unfed and will face enormous problems. His son, Robin, is doing badly with his father not present in the home.

Case three

On 2 February 2006, Rafik Khan (25), a painter by profession, and his mother Mrs. Shefali Begum were sleeping in their hut at Kadamtali village under Ikuria police station in Dhaka district. Suddenly, during the night, a police vehicle came to their house. The policemen broke the door and entered into the room. They arrested Rafik without any specific charge against him.

Rafik’s mother requested the police not to arrest her son. However, the police only intimidated her and made an attempt to arrest her along with Rafik. Mrs. Shefali collects abandoned papers from the streets in the Dhaka city and sells those to paper mongers. Her son works as a painter. They live their lives in financial hardships despite their hard work. Her son was neither a criminal nor a politician. She does not understand the reason for his arrest. The police did not send Rafik to the Court by February 5 despite the legal bindings for law enforcers to produce people, who are under arrest, within 24 hours following their arrest.

Case four

The police of Kamrangirchar police station arrested, Mr. Md. Mazibor Rahman, activist of the main opposition Bangladesh Awami League, from his Maydhya Rasulpur village under the same police station of Dhaka on 2 February 2006. Mazibor had no charge laid against him. The court twice rejected the bail petition submitted by his lawyers. The lawyers believe that the treatment of their client by the Court was unlawful and unacceptable according to the domestic laws of the country.

Meanwhile, a High Court Division Bench of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh issued an injunction restraining the government from any further arrest without warrants under Section 86 of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) Ordinance and Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) on 5 February 2006. The Court directed the respondents to submit a report in two weeks detailing the names and particulars of persons arrested under the two laws. The High Court Division bench asked the government to explain why the ‘wholesale’ arrests and detention of citizens under section 54 of the CrPC should not be declared illegal and why it should not be directed to refrain from ‘unwarranted and abusive exercise of powers’ under section 86 of the DMP Ordinance. It also issued a rule upon the government asking it to explain why section 86 of the DMP Ordinance should not be declared unlawful and contradictory to the constitution of the country, and why the government should not pay compensation to the victims.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Inspector General of Prisons and other persons listed below expressing your serious concern about the “wholesale arrest” of 10,000 people in the country and distress and harassment of them. The government agencies concerned must initiate appropriate measures to investigate the alleged illegal arrest and detention of the victims. Compensation must be afforded to the victims.

 

 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER