The families of two teenagers killed in Mohammadpur during a clash of Awami League factions ahead of the general election have been robbed of justice.

The family members of one of the victims said police submitted the final report in the case without talking to them. The report mentioned no clash even though it was widely covered by the media at that time. It termed the incident an “accident”.

Councillor Tarequzzaman Rajib of ward-33 also threatened the father of one of the victims not to file a murder case, they said. 

A case was filed after the November 10, 2018, incident and the father of one of the teens was made the plaintiff.  

The father maintains he did not file the case and that the signature on the case document could not be his since he is illiterate. He said Councillor Rajib put a gun to his head and told him to do as he said after the incident. 

The families opened up to this paper only after Rajib was arrested this week. 

On the morning of November 10, 2018, a procession of vehicles, largely comprised of flatbeds, with supporters of AL leader Sadek Khan was going towards the AL Dhanmondi office to buy nomination paper for Sadek’s candidacy in the polls.  

Mohammad Sujon, 19, and Arif Hossain, 14, were on one of the pickup trucks when the procession was attacked allegedly by the men of rival AL leader and then lawmaker Jahangir Kabir Nanak.  

During the melee Sujon and Arif fell off the vehicle and the driver, trying to avoid the brick chunks being hurled at the pickup, reversed and ran the two over, according to case documents, news reports, witness accounts, and statements of the families.  

Sujan and Arif died in hospital. 

Arif’s father Faruk Hossain was taken to a community centre in Mohammadpur when he was on his way to the hospital. He was confined there for 12 hours by Rajib’s men, Faruk told The Daily Star.  

Late at night, Rajib, reportedly Nanak’s ally, at the community centre told Faruk to go to the police station to talk about getting the body of his son. 

Faruk then went to the police station, gave his details, and told the officials there what he knew about the incident. He had no idea that police were filing a case making him the plaintiff. The police officials there asked him to identify the body at the Suhrawardy hospital, Faruk said.  

On his way to the hospital from the police station, two men stopped him near Shia Masjid and took him to Rajib’s home.  

Rajib told him at gunpoint to do as he said regarding the matter, Faruk told The Daily Star.  

“You wouldn’t get anything if you file a murder case. Instead, you will be harassed and face the same consequences as your son. You are from Lalmonhon of Bhola and so am I. Do what I say. You will get a good compensation,” Faruk quoted Rajib as saying. 

Faruk eventually identified his son’s body the next day.

Faruk said, “After the incident, I thought it was police who were the plaintiff in the case.

“This is my NID, sir. See, I can’t sign,” Faruk showed his NID to this correspondent which had his thumb print. 

Faruk said not a single police officer talked to him about the investigation since then. 

Sujon’s uncle Md Riaz told The Daily Star last night that the police never talked to them either.

He said councillor Rajib had promised them compensation and jobs for family members but he never delivered.

Sujon’s family did not know that the final report was submitted. They heard it first from The Daily Star correspondent.

After “investigating” the case for 11 months, police submitted the final report terming the incident an “accident”.

Police had arrested convener of Jubo League’s Adabar Thana unit Arifur Rahman Tuhin in connection with leading the attack but in the final report police said they found no evidence of Tuhin’s involvement.  

Rajib, on behalf of then MP Nanak, had given Arif’s family Tk 30,000 and Sujon’s family Tk 25,000 as burial cost. 

After the incident, AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader said the prime minister directed the authorities concerned to submit a probe report over the incident within two days. 

Whoever is found involved would be given exemplary punishment, he had said, adding that the prime minister wanted to know “who destroyed the peaceful election environment”. 

Sub-Inspector Mukul Ranjan of Mohammadpur police station, investigation officer (IO) of the case, said they submitted the final report of the case in the first week of this month as they could not find any evidence or witnesses. 

Police also could not identify the pickup truck and its driver. 

In the final report, police said the two factions of the ruling party came “face to face” near Mohammadi Homes Ltd on November 10 when the unidentified driver reversed in a hurry and could not see what was behind him. This led to the two getting run over.  

The SI in his investigation found no evidence of the clash. He only said the two faction came “face to face”. The media, however, had extensive coverage of the incident.  

They reported that the attackers, armed with hammers, sharp weapons and brick chunks, swooped on the procession of vehicles.  

The IO said said Faruk did not know what had actually happened and had “filed the case” based on hearsay.  

Taking to this newspaper, the SI claimed that he did not find anything in CCTV footage and no local wanted to be a witness. 

Asked why the IO never contacted Faruk, the IO first claimed that he had contacted him but later said they could not reach him. 

The IO claimed that Faruk had indeed filed the case.  

At one stage of the conversation with this correspondent, the IO said he had written the final report with direction from a superior officer of Tejgaon Division Police. 

Anisur Rahman, deputy commissioner (Tejgaon division) of Dhaka Metropolitan Police, told The Daily Star that he had no knowledge about the development of the case as he joined the division only a few months ago. 

“I will have to see the documents,” he added. 

In November last year, Nanak said he had nothing to do with the attack on the procession.  

Sadek had said that he did not want to blame anyone and demanded a proper investigation. 

The Daily Star could not reach Nanak and Sadek for comments over the last few days.

In today’s episode of ‘The Election Talks 2018’, noted economist Dr Hossain Zillur Rahman, a former adviser to a caretaker government, talks with The Daily Star about the election to be held tomorrow.

Dr Zillur Rahman said, "Although hope was created due to the participation of all the political parties, but we stumbled when the campaigning began."

The attacks carried out reportedly on behalf of the ruling party were more in number, he said.

Capturing the field became more important than securing people's vote during the electioneering, he added.

Watch the video to know more!

The message from Charles Whiteley, the European Union ambassador to Bangladesh, that the EU will not send any observers to the next parliamentary election if it is not participatory appears to be intended to encourage all political parties to make the election inclusive. The EU ambassador communicated this message to the BNP, the main opposition, on Sunday when they met in Dhaka. Media reports suggest that a similar message has been passed on to the government as well. Though participation or inclusiveness of an election is an important prerequisite, can it alone make elections credible or fair? Unfortunately, the 2018 experience proved otherwise.

If a participatory election means that the maximum number of political parties and independent candidates will take part in the race, the 2018 election was truly participatory. Even most other by-elections held afterwards, including the latest six by-polls to the parliamentary seats vacated by BNP MPs, were somehow participatory. But if elections are meant for voters to participate in freely, then none of these elections would be counted as participatory, let alone credible or acceptable.

Read more

No change in tune for the EC in its first year

Let's recount what the EU and some other countries said about the 2018 election. According to a Reuters report following the polls, the EU statement said, "Violence has marred the election day, and significant obstacles to a level playing field remained in place throughout the process and have tainted the electoral campaign and the vote." The EU also called for "a proper examination of allegations of irregularities."

The United States said, "We are concerned that election-day irregularities prevented some people from voting, which undermined faith in the electoral process." It added that "credible reports of harassment, intimidation, and violence in the pre-election period made it difficult for many opposition candidates and their supporters to meet, hold rallies, and campaign freely."

As the election monitoring process is a long-drawn-out exercise, one may wonder whether this is a premature warning about the EU's own limitations. Similarly, questions can be raised as to why there has not been more emphasis on "genuine elections," as was the case in 2018 when the EU urged all the stakeholders to "ensure a genuine, credible, inclusive and transparent electoral process in Bangladesh." The country needs a genuine election in its true sense, not a sham exercise under the pretence of maximum participation.

Echoing similar concerns, the UK's then Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field said he was "aware of credible accounts of obstacles, including arrests, that constrained or prevented campaigning by (the) opposition parties," and then urged "a full, credible and transparent resolution of all complaints related to the conduct of the elections."

These observations came largely on the basis of media reports and very limited access to the polling stations granted to diplomats stationed in Dhaka as most of the foreign observers, except a few from India, were not able to monitor the polls. The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL), which was expected to deploy the largest number of observers, regretfully terminated their mission just a week before the polls, saying it was "due to significant delays in the accreditation approval by the Bangladesh Election Commission and visa approvals by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." ANFREL was supported by the US and a few other nations.

Much before the ANFREL, the EU announced that they were not sending any observer team owing to a lack of preparation and resources. "Sending a credible observer mission is a very big operation. It requires a big number of observers and months of preparation. So, in budgetary terms, it's quite expensive," the then EU Ambassador in Dhaka Rensje Teerink explained to Deutsche Welle.

Read more

Calling the by-polls 'free and fair' dims hope for 2024

What makes election monitoring a challenging task was explained well to this daily by Charles Whiteley. He said there were three phases when it comes to sending election observers. First, an exploratory delegation will visit the country to assess the situation six months before the election. Then a long-term delegation will come, most probably two months ahead of the polls. Finally, another team of EU election observers will come to observe the election.

There are a number of instances when a major contending party changed its mind at the last moment on taking part in an election or boycotting it. In 1986, the Awami League broke the opposition boycott at the eleventh hour; in 2006, the party, along with its allies, announced boycott after the Election Commission declared Gen Ershad's nomination invalid. It is, therefore, an unrealistic proposition that election monitoring will be dependent on the participation of all major political parties. What prevents poll monitors from withdrawing if, at any stage, they feel that their exercise is meaningless due to foul play, or the integrity of the process is being tainted, or their own safety is at risk?

As the election monitoring process is a long-drawn-out exercise, one may wonder whether this is a premature warning about the EU's own limitations. Similarly, questions can be raised as to why there has not been more emphasis on "genuine elections," as was the case in 2018 when the EU urged all the stakeholders to "ensure a genuine, credible, inclusive and transparent electoral process in Bangladesh." The country needs a genuine election in its true sense, not a sham exercise under the pretence of maximum participation.

The term "genuine elections" is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to the Compendium of International Standards for Elections, the element of genuine elections may be understood at two levels. In the broader sense, the adjective genuine can be seen to bring in the adjacent political freedoms and rights, such as the freedom of expression, assembly, association, and movement. In the narrower sense, the element of genuine election refers to voters having a real choice between distinct political options and contestants.

It's a well-known fact that as December is the month of Christmas, the biggest religious celebration in the West, organising an observer team is a big ask for them. Therefore, it is understandable that any election in the later part of December or early January is likely to be affected by a lack of enthusiasm in monitoring on the part of Western nations. Hope our political parties and the Election Commission will keep it in mind when scheduling the general election. 

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His Twitter handle is @ahmedka1