In the backdrop of Bangladesh's recent political changes, the interim/current government's decision to impose controls on the publication and rebroadcast of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s interviews in Indian media has sparked a policy debate. Expressing severe indignation over the Indian government’s failure to restrain Sheikh Hasina from speaking to the press and granting her the opportunity to defend herself, Sheikh Hasina—pointing out the issue of her conviction through trial in absentia—has raised three primary demands: the withdrawal of the ban on the Awami League, the retraction of political cases against party supporters, and the assurance of judicial independence. Remarkably, while attempts were made during the previous Awami League administration to prevent Tarique Rahman from delivering speeches during his 17-year exile in the UK, inconsistency and restriction surrounding freedom of speech and media independence remain evident even after the shift in power dynamics.

Imposing a ban on broadcasting any political leader's speech through the media calls into question basic freedom of speech and the right to expression. According to international standards, upholding media freedom is a primary responsibility of a democratic state. Creating legal or administrative hurdles to block the transmission of a specific individual's statement ultimately curtails the right to information.

The credibility of any judicial proceeding conducted in absentia is frequently criticized under international human rights standards. Any accused individual must have the right to self-defense and to present their statement before the global community. The demands raised in Sheikh Hasina’s statement—such as easing pressure on political opposition and safeguarding judicial neutrality—are critical elements for fostering a stable political environment.

The practice of conducting political activities and delivering speeches to the media from prolonged exile is not new to Bangladesh's politics. Just as past governments attempted to stifle the voices of political opponents, adopting similar restrictive measures under current circumstances instead of reconstructing media freedom reflects political hypocrisy. Setting varying standards for freedom of expression depending on whether one is in power or not goes against democratic practices. To re-establish permanent political stability and democracy, it is imperative to rise above partisan perspectives to guarantee freedom of speech, media neutrality, and the rule of law. A policy of suppressing opposition voices solely through control only escalates political imbalance in the long run.

138 media outlets, including world-renowned news organization Reuters, broadcast my leader's Delhi Press Club event live. Furthermore, 254 media organizations covered her event directly; citing them, it is difficult to calculate how many hundreds of thousands of news outlets covered it worldwide. In the overall context of Bangladesh, for those who spend millions of dollars and hire lobbyist firms to publish news in the media, I say this: my leader's event has set an international record. No politician from Bangladesh has ever received such extensive global media coverage before. I also invite them to verify this information of mine.

To re-establish permanent political stability and democracy, it is imperative to rise above partisan perspectives to guarantee freedom of speech, media neutrality, and the rule of law. A policy of suppressing opposition voices solely through control only escalates political imbalance in the long run.

Author: Anwaruzzaman Chowdhury, Mayor, Sylhet City Corporation