Three Imprisoned Over Historic Speech Broadcast

A Dhaka court has ordered the imprisonment of three individuals, including a former Vice President of the Shamsunnahar Hall Union, in connection with a series of confrontations involving the broadcasting of the historic 7th March speech. The trio now faces charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act following a sequence of events that began near Chankharpul and culminated in a standoff outside the Shahbagh Police Station.

The Spark of Conflict

The situation unfolded on Saturday afternoon when Asif Ahmed Saikat, the Employment Secretary of the Shahidullah Hall branch of the Chhatra League, was detained by police while playing the 7th March speech through a sound system in the Chankharpul area. This initial detention sparked a reactionary protest later that evening.

At approximately 9:30 PM, Sheikh Tasnim Afroz Emi, the former VP of Shamsunnahar Hall, alongside Abdullah Al Mamun, an Assistant Secretary of the Sergeant Zahurul Huq Hall Chhatra League, led a demonstration in front of the Shahbagh Police Station. The protesters utilised a rickshaw-mounted loudspeaker to continue broadcasting the speech, which led to an immediate confrontation with another group of students. Figures from the National Student Power and former DUCSU representatives reportedly intervened to halt the broadcast, resulting in a scuffle where the protesters were taken into the police station.

Court Proceedings and Charges

On Sunday, Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate Jewel Rana presided over the hearing. Sub-Inspector Md. Ashadul Islam, the investigating officer from Shahbagh Police Station, formally requested that the suspects be kept in judicial custody.

The police First Information Report (FIR) alleges that the group’s actions were intentionally provocative. According to the report:

The group gathered near the National Museum Gate No. 1 during evening Tarawih prayers.

They allegedly directed “incendiary slogans” toward the mosque using loudspeakers.

Authorities claim the suspects attempted to interfere with police duties and tried to forcibly retrieve Saikat from custody.

Profiles of the Individuals Involved

Legal Implications

The application of the Anti-Terrorism Act suggests that the authorities view the attempt to mobilise through these broadcasts as a threat to public order and a conspiracy against the state. While the defence may argue that playing a historic speech is a matter of cultural expression, the prosecution maintains that the timing and manner of the protest—specifically during prayer times and near a police facility—were designed to incite unrest. The three accused will remain in central incarceration pending further investigation.