In every civilized democracy, the judiciary stands as the supreme sanctuary of impartiality — a sacred institution where justice must remain blind to political identity, ideology, and power. Once citizens begin to believe that courts are selective in their application of justice, the moral foundation of the state itself starts to fracture. Bangladesh today appears dangerously close to that precipice.
An increasingly disturbing perception has begun to circulate across political and public discourse: that legal accountability in contemporary Bangladesh is being applied unevenly, with one set of political actors facing relentless prosecution while others appear insulated by invisible layers of protection. Whether this perception is entirely justified or partially exaggerated, its political consequences are undeniably profound.
The allegation now echoing through many segments of society is stark: “Is justice reserved only for the Awami League, Bangladesh’s oldest, largest and the country’s founding political party, while others enjoy immunity?”
This question has acquired renewed momentum amid controversies surrounding the interim administration led by Muhammad Yunus installed on 8 August 2024 by the American deep state and the CIA exclusively for their geo-political and economic interest.
But under the stewardship of Sheikh Hasina, the Bangladesh Awami League elevated Bangladesh into a remarkable beacon of development across nearly every sector during its almost sixteen-year tenure, bringing the nation close to the standards of many Western countries.
Yet, on 5 August 2024, this transformative government was unlawfully ousted through a deeply entrenched conspiracy orchestrated by powerful Western interests in collusion with domestic and foreign collaborators.
Critics argue that while numerous false cases, investigations, and public condemnations have been directed toward leaders and supporters associated with the Bangladesh Awami League, allegations involving influential figures linked to the present power structure appear to move with remarkable slowness — or disappear into silence altogether.
Such accusations have become further amplified through political commentary, media discussions, and social platforms questioning whether legal institutions are now operating under selective political pressures. These narratives often cite corruption allegations, administrative controversies, and questions surrounding governance accountability that, according to critics, have not received equivalent judicial urgency.
The danger here is not merely political polarization. The greater danger lies in the corrosion of public faith in the rule of law itself.
Courts do not merely issue verdicts; they shape the moral confidence of a nation. When justice appears asymmetrical, citizens gradually lose belief in institutional neutrality. The courtroom then ceases to symbolize fairness and instead becomes viewed as an extension of political warfare. That transformation is catastrophic for any republic aspiring to democratic maturity.
Bangladesh’s tragic political history already bears the scars of institutional distrust. Successive eras have witnessed accusations of politically motivated prosecutions, selective investigations, and legal harassment wielded as instruments of state power. Each regime, rather than dismantling this dangerous culture, has too often appeared tempted to inherit and refine it.
Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that selective justice eventually destroys those who weaponize it.
A judiciary perceived as partisan cannot command enduring legitimacy. Political victories secured through unequal legal application may offer temporary advantage, but they simultaneously poison the future credibility of the state itself. The immediate target may be one political party, but the ultimate victim becomes national justice.
Moreover, the present climate risks deepening societal fragmentation. Supporters of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and anti-Awami factions frequently argue that past governments used state institutions against opponents.
Conversely, Awami League supporters now contend that the current environment has normalized punitive legal targeting against them while overlooking allegations involving politically favored actors. In such a vicious cycle, every transition of power merely produces a reversal of persecution rather than the establishment of genuine justice.
No democracy can survive long under such conditions.
The judiciary must therefore rise above factional expectations and political convenience. It must visibly demonstrate that no citizen — whether aligned with the Awami League, BNP, Jamaat, or any other political force — stands above the law, nor beneath its protection.
Equal accountability is not merely a constitutional principle; it is the oxygen of democratic legitimacy.
At the same time, political actors themselves bear immense responsibility. Reckless public attacks on judicial institutions, emotionally charged conspiracy narratives, and the weaponization of legal accusations for partisan mobilization further erode institutional stability.
Bangladesh desperately requires restraint, transparency, and principled legal reform rather than perpetual cycles of revenge politics.
The true test of justice is not how harshly it treats the powerless or the unpopular. The true test lies in whether it can impartially examine those closest to authority itself.
If courts are seen as protecting one side while punishing another, the nation enters a perilous moral territory where law loses sanctity and power alone dictates outcomes. Once that perception hardens within public consciousness, restoring trust becomes extraordinarily difficult.
Bangladesh was born through the dream of fairness, dignity, and democratic aspiration. That dream cannot survive beneath the shadow of selective justice. The courtroom must remain a sanctuary of equal law — not a theatre of political preference.
The unlawful prohibition imposed upon the Bangladesh Awami League must be rescinded tout de suite, allowing the party to return, without delay, to Bangladesh’s political arena and resume its democratic role within the nation’s constitutional and electoral landscape.
