Sheikh Hasina authorised deadly Bangladesh crackdown, leaked audio suggests
A spokesperson for her Awami League party denied the tape showed any "unlawful intention" of "disproportionate response".
The leaked audio of Hasina's conversation with an unidentified senior government official is the most significant evidence yet that she gave direct authorisation to shoot anti-government protesters, tens of thousands of whom had taken to the streets by last summer.The protests began against civil service job quotas for relatives of those who fought in the 1971 war of independence and escalated into a mass movement that ousted Hasina, who had been in power for 15 years. It the worst violence Bangladesh had seen since the 1971 war.Some of the bloodiest scenes occurred on 5 August, the day Hasina fled by helicopter before crowds stormed her residence in Dhaka. The BBC World Service investigation established previously unreported details about a police massacre of protesters in the capital - including a much higher death toll.
Hasina was at her residence in Dhaka, known as the Ganabhaban, for the duration of the call which took place on 18 July, a source with knowledge of the leaked audio told the BBC.It was a crucial moment in the demonstrations. Security officials were responding to public outrage at police killings of protesters captured on video and shared across social media. In the days following the call, military-grade rifles were deployed and used across Dhaka, according to police documents seen by the BBC.The recording the BBC examined is one of numerous calls involving Sheikh Hasina that were made by the National Telecommunications Monitoring Centre (NTMC), a Bangladeshi government body responsible for monitoring communications.The audio of the call was leaked in early March this year - it's unclear by whom. Since the protests, numerous clips of Hasina's calls have appeared online, many of them unverified.The leaked 18 July recording was voice matched by the Criminal Investigation Department in the Bangladesh Police with known audio of Sheikh Hasina's voice.The BBC conducted its own independent verification by sharing the recording with audio forensics experts Earshot, who found no evidence the speech had been edited or manipulated and said it was highly unlikely to have been synthetically generated.Earshot said the leaked recording was likely to have been taken in a room with the phone call played back on a speaker, due to the presence of distinctive telephonic frequencies and background sounds. Earshot identified Electric Network Frequency (ENF) throughout the recording, a frequency that's often present in audio recordings due to interference between a recording device and mains-powered equipment, an indicator that the audio has not been manipulated.Earshot also analysed Sheikh Hasina's speech – the rhythm, intonation and breath sounds - and identified consistent noise floor levels, finding no evidence of synthetic artefacts in the audio."The recordings are critical for establishing her role, they are clear and have been properly authenticated, and are supported by other evidence," British international human rights barrister Toby Cadman told the BBC. He is advising Bangladesh's International Criminal Tribunal (ICT), the court hearing cases against Hasina and others.An Awami League spokesperson said: "We cannot confirm whether the tape recording referenced by the BBC is authentic."
Alongside Sheikh Hasina, former government and police officials have been implicated in the killings of protesters. A total of 203 individuals have been indicted by the ICT, of whom 73 are in custody.BBC Eye analysed and verified hundreds of videos, images and documents detailing police attacks against demonstrators across 36 days.The investigation found that in one incident on 5 August in Jatrabari, a busy Dhaka neighbourhood, at least 52 people were killed by police, making it one of the worst incidents of police violence in Bangladesh's history. Initial reports at the time suggested 30 dead in Jatrabari on that day.
Outside the UK, watch on YouTube
The BBC investigation uncovered new details about how the massacre started and ended.Gathering eyewitness footage, CCTV and drone imagery, BBC Eye established that police opened fire indiscriminately on protesters immediately after army personnel, who were separating the police from the protesters, vacated the area.For more than 30 minutes the police shot at fleeing protesters as they tried to escape down alleyways and on the highway, before the police officers sought shelter in a nearby army camp. At least six police officers were also killed as protesters retaliated hours later, setting fire to the Jatrabari police station.A spokesperson for the Bangladesh Police told the BBC that 60 police officers had been arrested for their role in the violence in July and August last year."There were regrettable incidents in which certain members of the then police force engaged in excessive use of force," said the spokesperson. "Bangladesh Police has launched thorough and impartial investigations."
Sheikh Hasina's trial began last month. She has been charged with committing crimes against humanity, including issuing orders that led to mass killings and targeted violence against civilians, as well as incitement, conspiracy and failure to prevent mass murder.India has so far failed to comply with a Bangladeshi request for her extradition. It is unlikely that Hasina will return to the country for the trial, Mr Cadman said.The Awami League maintains that its leaders are not liable for the force used against protesters."The Awami League categorically denies and rejects claims that some of its senior leaders, including the prime minister herself, were personally responsible for or directed the use of lethal force against crowds," a spokesperson for the party said."The decisions made by senior government officials were proportionate in nature, made in good faith and intended to minimise the loss of life."The party has rejected the findings of United Nations investigators, who said they had found reasonable grounds to believe the actions of Hasina and her government could amount to crimes against humanity.The BBC approached the Bangladesh army for comment but did not receive a response.Since Hasina's fall, Bangladesh has been ruled by an interim government led by Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.His government is preparing for national elections. It's unclear if the Awami League will be allowed to contest the vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US to ease human rights criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia, WaPo reports
WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - The Trump administration plans to scale back criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia over human rights, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing drafts of the State Department's annual human rights reports. The draft reports related to those countries were significantly shorter than the ones prepared by the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden, who left office in January, when Donald Trump assumed the presidency. The State Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters on Wednesday, has not yet officially released this year's reports, which cover last year's incidents. Usually, these annual reports are released around March or April each year. "The 2024 Human Rights Report has been restructured in a way that removes redundancies, increases report readability and is more responsive to the legislative mandates that underpin the report," a State Department official briefing reporters on Wednesday said. "The report is not meant to be a every single human rights abuse that's happened in every single country. It's meant to be illustrative and a broad picture of what the conditions of human rights are on the ground in each country."
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Afghanistan's Taliban have 'weaponized' the judicial system to oppress women, UN expert says
Afghanistan's Taliban rulers have 'weaponized' the legal and judicial system to oppress women and girls in what amounts to 'crimes against humanity,' the independent U.N. investigator on human rights in the country said. Richard Bennett said in a report to the U.N. General Assembly circulated Wednesday that after seizing power in 2021 the Taliban suspended the 2004 constitution and laws protecting the rights of women and girls. These include a landmark law that criminalized 22 forms of violence against women, including rape and child and forced marriage. The Taliban dismissed all judges under the previous U.S.-backed government, including approximately 270 women, replacing them with men who share their extreme Islamic views, lack legal training and hand down decisions based on edicts issued by the Taliban, he said. In addition, he noted that the Taliban have assumed full control over law enforcement and investigative agencies, systematically purging Afghans who worked for the previous government. Bennett, who was appointed by the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, focused on access to justice and protection for women and girls in his report. He said he held meetings, focus-group discussions and one-on-one interviews with more that 110 Afghans inside and outside the country. He did so remotely because the Taliban have refused to grant him a visa to travel to Afghanistan. Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, their crackdown on women and girls has been widely reported and globally denounced. Taliban leaders have barred education for women and girls beyond sixth grade, banned most employment, and prohibited women from many public spaces, including parks, gyms and hairdressers. New laws ban women's voices and bare faces outside the home. The Taliban remain isolated from the West because of their restrictions on women and girls and have only been recognized by Russia. Bennett said the Taliban did not respond to an advance copy of the report and a request for information about their efforts to ensure access to justice and protection for women and girls. The Taliban defend their approach to justice by claiming they are implementing Islamic sharia law, but Islamic scholars and others have said their interpretation is unparalleled in other Muslim-majority countries and does not adhere to Islamic teachings. They say protecting the legal rights of women is a priority. Bennett said, however, that women have virtually no rights. 'Today, there are no women judges or prosecutors and no officially registered female lawyers, leaving women and girls with fewer safe channels to report abuse or seek redress,' he wrote. 'Coupled with a lack of female officials in the police and other institutions, the result is widespread underreporting of violence and discrimination against women and girls.' Bennett said access to justice for girls 'is further undermined by the dismantling of key legal safeguards and institutions protecting the rights of children,' including juvenile courts and juvenile rehabilitation centers. The Taliban requirement that a woman must be accompanied by a male relative also creates barriers to filing complaints and attending court proceedings, he said, and disproportionately affects widows, women who are the heads of their households, the displaced and disabled. 'Women who engage with the Taliban court system — whether as victims seeking redress, to resolve family issues, to obtain official documents or as alleged offenders — face a hostile environment,' Bennett said. ' Courts often reject complaints made by women and are especially reluctant to accept cases relating to divorce, child custody and gender-based violence.' Facing these obstacles, Bennett said, women increasingly turn to traditional and informal justice mechanisms, including formal jirgas and shuras — community councils of elders — and informal mediation by religious leaders, community elders or family. But these are all male-dominated and raise 'serious concerns about the rights of women and girls,' he said. He said international forums offer the best hope for justice. He pointed to the International Criminal Court's request on Jan. 23 for arrest warrants for two senior Taliban leaders accused of crimes against humanity for persecution 'on gender grounds.' And he urged all countries to support efforts to bring Afghanistan before the International Court of Justice, the U.N.'s highest tribunal, for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Times
5 hours ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
