Instrumentalizing anti-terrorism law to achieve a political goal creates a dangerous precedent in any democratic polity
By Sangita Gazi | May 11, 2026
On April 8, Bangladesh’s parliament passed the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2026, by voice vote, thereby making the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 legally binding. The Act amends the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009 (ATA) and designates the Awami League and its affiliates as “terrorist organizations.” Originally a stopgap measure to hold political leaders accountable for the crimes committed in July–August 2024, the law provides for a proscription mechanism that can apply not only to the Awami League but also to other political organizations.
This framework emerged following the July 2024 uprising and the subsequent toppling of the Awami League government. On October 23, 2024, the interim administration, led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus, issued an executive order declaring the Awami League’s student wing, the Bangladesh Chhatra League, a “terrorist organization.” A little over six months later, following protests led by the National Citizen Party (NCP), the interim administration promulgated the Ordinance, which amended the 2009 ATA. The amendment temporarily barred the Awami League from engaging in political activities pending the trial of its leadership.
The Ordinance introduced significant changes to the ATA, expanding the definition of an “organization” to include “political parties.” Section 18(1) granted the executive the authority to impose a temporary ban on the activities of a political party. This prohibition extends to activities such as the “dissemination of propaganda online and via social media,” bypassing any constitutional test that would ordinarily be required for such sweeping restrictions.
Human Rights Watch condemned this amendment as draconian. In any democratic society, banning a political party requires a high legal threshold and often necessitates judicial intervention, given that freedom of association is a fundamental constitutional right.
With the Ordinance now ratified by the legislature, the Awami League—Bangladesh’s oldest political party—and its politicians, activists, and supporters fall under a proscribed regime. Without judicial review, such executive action appears, on its face, to violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international standards that prohibit collective punishment.
The issue of banning the Awami League was first raised through a writ petition, which the High Court summarily rejected on the grounds that the Awami League was not a party to the petition and that a political party could not be tried before the High Court. During the hearing, then Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman advised the Court to reject the petition, arguing that the interim government had no intention of banning political parties and that the petitioner lacked locus standi. However, under pressure from the NCP, which demanded a ban on the Awami League, the executive later promulgated the Ordinance. The involvement of another political party in influencing this decision, despite the administration’s earlier stance of neutrality, raises concerns and underscores the need for judicial review of due process.
Notably, the same individual who had advised against imposing the ban later became law minister after the February 2026 election and played a role in formalizing the proscription framework. This is where judicial scrutiny becomes essential—to assess whether there was mala fide (bad faith) intent by the executive and legislative branches, and whether powers were exercised for improper or unauthorized purposes, as well as to evaluate the proportionality and reasonableness of the amendment.
The amended ATA raises serious concerns because it restricts fundamental freedoms protected under Bangladesh’s Constitution and international human rights law. A court must examine whether the law has gone too far. Without such review, the law remains vulnerable to executive misuse and overreach. It could potentially be used to ban any political party without adequate justification, without exploring less severe alternatives, or without providing the party an opportunity to respond.
The urgency for judicial review arises from several issues. First, the amendment employs vague language, allowing the government to ban a political party based on a “reasonable belief,” which is a low and subjective threshold for such a serious action.
The proscription of the Awami League could effectively disenfranchise millions of its supporters from participating in national elections. Counterterrorism experts generally caution against overly broad legal definitions, as they increase the risk of deliberate misuse by the executive.
The amendment also conflicts with the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” The ban is linked to ongoing trials of party leaders, meaning the party faces punishment before any conviction is secured. This approach unfairly implicates ordinary members and supporters for crimes they did not commit.
Furthermore, the law grants extensive discretionary powers to the government in defining what constitutes prohibited activities. Officials can determine, with minimal guidance, what behavior “creates panic,” threatens the state, or supports a banned group. The amendment does not clearly define terms such as “membership” and “support,” making it easier to stretch the law beyond its intended scope. The ban also includes restrictions on “propaganda online and via social media,” bypassing constitutional safeguards.
Previously, the interim administration detained a rising YouTube influencer on terrorism charges for content critical of the government. This raises additional concerns about the potential misuse of the law.
These concerns deepen when the law is applied to historical and cultural expressions. On March 7, 2026, several Dhaka University students were arrested for replaying Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic March 7 speech, as the government associated it with the Awami League. In another case, 12 teenagers faced terrorism charges for filming a video in which they chanted “Joy Bangla,” a Liberation War slogan later associated with the Awami League.
Following the violent protests of July–August 2024 and the breakdown of law and order during the interim administration, banning the former ruling party may appear to be a quick solution. However, using anti-terrorism laws to achieve political objectives sets a dangerous precedent in any democratic system.
Serious legal questions must be addressed by the courts, including the absence of pre-ban hearings for the Awami League, the retrospective ratification of the Ordinance, and the vague “until trial concludes” clause, which could extend for years and invite abuse. Although the government cites national security concerns, any executive action that restricts political rights and civil liberties must be subject to judicial scrutiny. Failure to do so risks creating a system where rights and freedoms are reserved only for the powerful and privileged.
Sangita Gazi
Sangita Gazi is a lecturer and post-doctoral research fellow at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.