Saidur Rahman Shafi, an English student at the University of Dhaka, was sitting at Suhrawardy Udyan when police arrived for an anti-drug operation with mobile journalists, often known as “MoJo” reporters, and searched him on camera.
The footage, streamed on Facebook Live, quickly spread online.
Although police did not find any illegal items on him, Shafi said the incident left him embarrassed not only within the university but also among relatives and people in his hometown.
“I was treated as if I were a criminal, even though nothing was found,” he said.
The growing use of live-streamed content during law enforcement operations has sparked debate over its impact on individual rights.
In recent years, media outlets have increasingly produced content tailored for social media, often prioritising speed and visual appeal.
During police raids and operations, journalists are sometimes present to capture events in real time.
Critics say such coverage can portray individuals being questioned or searched as guilty, even before any legal process has begun.
Legal experts stress that, under the law, a person remains an accused or a suspect until proven guilty in court.
They argue that presenting individuals as offenders during investigations undermines the principle of the rule of law.
Former Dhaka University Mass Communication and Journalism Professor Golam Rahman said journalistic ethics require that individuals be treated as suspects unless proven otherwise.
“Portraying someone as a criminal before a court verdict goes against basic journalistic standards,” he said.
He added that the rise of live streaming and mobile journalism on social media risks misleading the public and subjecting individuals to public humiliation outside the judicial process.
Saiful Alam Chowdhury, a former journalist and now a professor of journalism, said traditional editorial safeguards appeared to be weakening.
“There are ethical standards in journalism, and gatekeepers are meant to uphold them, but in such cases, those safeguards seem absent,” he said.
Supreme Court lawyer Manzill Murshid said broadcasting such footage constitutes a serious violation of personal privacy and dignity.
“This kind of live or video content breaches a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and honour,” he said.
What happened to Shafi
Saidur Rahman Shafi said he had been doing what he often does, spending time with friends at Suhrawardy Udyan, when the incident unfolded.
Speaking to TIMES of Bangladesh, he said police suddenly arrived at around 8pm on that day in February, accompanied by several people carrying cameras who identified themselves as journalists.
Officers began searching him almost immediately, while those with cameras started broadcasting the encounter live on Facebook.
Shafi alleged he was beaten during the operation over suspected drug involvement, leaving him injured.
Multiple videos of the search later spread across university-based Facebook pages, and he was subsequently suspended from his residential hall for six months on allegations of drug involvement.
“There were four or five police officers present, but at least 20 to 40 journalists,” he said.
Shafi said he tried to have the footage removed from various platforms but was unable to do so.
Another student’s experience
A female student at the University of Dhaka described a similar experience, saying she too had been publicly humiliated by such live-streamed content.
The student, who asked not to be named, said she had been spending time with her boyfriend at Suhrawardy Udyan in March when both were searched during an operation.
She said mobile cameras remained fixed on her as her boyfriend was searched, and the footage was later widely circulated beyond the initial live broadcast.
Numerous short video clips portrayed her as “an accomplice to a criminal”, she said.
The student added that the videos had affected her family, with relatives in her village now treating them with disrespect.
‘Live frenzy’ driven by views and reach
The surge in live-streamed coverage of police operations is being fuelled by a pursuit of online visibility, according to legal experts.
Supreme Court lawyer Manzill Murshid told TIMES that the trend reflects a “live frenzy” among multimedia journalists driven by the race for views and reach.
He said such practices risk violating constitutional protections, including safeguards under Article 35 of the Constitution, which ensure that no individual is compelled to testify against themselves.
“Operations conducted in this manner are undermining those rights,” he said.
Murshid also pointed to the role of law enforcement, arguing that authorities often use media exposure to promote their activities.
Court warnings repeatedly overlooked
In a High Court observation on 24 May 2012, the practice of presenting accused individuals before the media was strongly criticised.
At the time, police and other law enforcement agencies gave written assurances that they would no longer parade suspects before the media.
However, similar practices have continued.
In several rulings in 2015, the courts reiterated that suspects must not be exposed to the media before being presented in court, and directed the Inspector General of Police to issue clear guidelines.
A 2019 High Court observation further described media briefings during ongoing investigations as “contrary to justice and fair investigation”, and called on authorities to develop a coordinated policy framework.
Why are mobile journalists present?
The frequent presence of mobile journalists at police operations has raised further questions about how such coverage is organised.
Small-scale operations are often broadcast prominently across multiple media outlets’ Facebook pages, suggesting prior coordination.
Several anti-drug drives at Suhrawardy Udyan have been led by Dhaka Metropolitan Police Ramna Division Deputy Commissioner Masud Alam, often accompanied by groups of mobile journalists who stream events live and later edit clips into short videos.
Asked why such coverage is allowed, he said police do not obstruct journalists in the interest of transparency, but try to protect individuals’ privacy.
“In areas like Shahbagh or Suhrawardy Udyan, there is a large presence of journalists. During minor incidents, there may be 20 to 50 multimedia reporters,” he said.
“Their presence is not directed by police, and live broadcasts are not instructed by us. These occur independently.”
However, several mobile journalists who spoke to TIMES of Bangladesh offered a different account.
They said police often inform selected reporters in advance about upcoming operations.
“One who has closer ties is usually called and told when the operation will take place,” one journalist said.
Where is the solution?
Legal experts and media professionals say stronger adherence to law and ethics is key to addressing the issue.
Manzill Murshid described the trend as a form of “social media trial” and stressed the need to build a culture of compliance with the law.
“Stopping this requires respect for legal principles,” he said.
Former Dhaka University Professor Golam Rahman said Bangladesh lacks clear ethical guidelines for social media use, unlike countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
“In those countries, there are defined ethical standards for social media, but in Bangladesh there is no such framework,” he said.
“This allows opportunistic actors to exploit the situation for personal agendas.”
Asked about possible remedies, he said those affected should pursue legal action.
“Victims of defamation must seek legal redress,” he said.
“Even if aware citizens view this negatively, without legal action, the practice is unlikely to stop.”
