Journalist leaders have accused Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury of violating the constitution by maintaining a ban on media access to Supreme Court courtrooms.
During a sit-in programme organised by the Law Reporters Forum (LRF) at the Supreme Court’s main gate on Wednesday, speakers said the right to observe court proceedings is both a professional right of journalists and essential to public’s right to know about the judicial process.
Leaders noted that media access to the Appellate Division and various benches of the High Court Division has been restricted since 7 January. This has resulted in journalists facing significant obstacles while attempting to directly observe proceedings and collect news.
Constitutional obligation
Addressing the programme, Nurul Kabir, president of the editors’ council and editor of New Age, stated that conducting trials in open court is a constitutional obligation in Bangladesh.
He remarked that it is “sad, unfortunate, and shameful” if the highest level of the judiciary undermines rights provided by the constitution instead of protecting them.
Kabir highlighted that after the 2024 mass uprising, there were high expectations for the establishment of democratic and civic rights.
He argued that court proceedings should be presented to the public through the media, but accused the judicial leadership of depriving citizens of their right to information.
He further noted that the media has historically stood by the judiciary when past governments exerted pressure, making the current democratic mindset of the judicial leadership questionable. Despite seeking a meeting with the Chief Justice to discuss the matter, the leaders were not granted an audience.
Rights and accountability
Shahidul Islam, President of the Dhaka Union of Journalists (DUJ), questioned where people would turn if the courts – the last resort for those deprived of rights – deny rights themselves. He urged the Chief Justice to establish the right to information, warning of tougher programmes if demands are not met.
Islam also recalled the events of 5 August 2024, when the former Chief Justice and several judges left the country, stating that journalists do not wish to see a repeat of such circumstances.
Abu Saleh Akon, President of Dhaka Reporters’ Unity (DRU), questioned what occurs in courtrooms that the public should not know, suggesting that such secrecy creates suspicion.
He referenced the “fascist regime” where “dictated verdicts” led to executions and emphasised that journalists, who have long fought for freedom of speech and the press, will not accept interference in their professional duties.
He suggested the government could consult the Chief Justice to ensure professional rights, failing which journalist organisations would launch a united movement with the LRF.
Transparency and public trust
Saleh Uddin, former LRF President and Executive Editor of Ittefaq, commented that despite constitutional guarantees for open trials, journalists are being removed from courtrooms.
Speakers further argued that restricting direct observation raises questions regarding the transparency of the judicial process and the public’s right to information.
They acknowledged that while the media can make mistakes, the judiciary also has an appeal system because it is not immune to error; similarly, media errors can be rectified.
The sit-in was presided over by LRF President Muhammad Yasmin and moderated by General Secretary Arafat Munna. Yasmin announced that if the ban is not lifted, a programme to enter the Appellate Division courtroom would soon be declared.
Solidarity and participation
Leaders from the Editors’ Council, DUJ, DRU, Bangladesh Crime Reporters Association (CRAB), Reporters Against Corruption (RAC), and Reporters Forum for Election and Democracy (RFED) expressed solidarity with the movement.
Key attendees included CRAB General Secretary MM Badshah, RAC President Shafiuddin Ahmed, and RFED General Secretary Ikram Ud Doula.
Several former LRF leaders and current executive committee members, including Abu Saleh Rony, Tanvir Ahmed, and over 200 members from various media organisations, participated in the protest.
The leaders concluded that keeping court proceedings open is vital for building public confidence in the judiciary.
They maintained that any administrative issues could be resolved through discussion, but warned that continued restrictions would force them to seek their professional rights through a united movement.
