1: The Spectacle Disguised as Journalism
Al Jazeera’s “HASINA – 36 Days in July” is marketed as an investigative documentary. In truth, it functions as a media indictment. From framing to narration, from sourcing to visual mood-setting, the entire feature seems less interested in investigating the truth than in delivering a preordained verdict: Sheikh Hasina is guilty.
Al Jazeera and the BBC, in their respective pieces, center their accusations on a short leaked audio clip — barely 80 seconds long — which they treat as a smoking gun. For the sake of brevity, this article will only focus on Al Jazeera Documentary. This audio captures a voice that has allegedly been attributed to the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, issuing directives in the midst of a violent uprising. The audio, at the time of publishing, is neither forensically authenticated nor interpreted with journalistic caution. Worse, its use is framed within a montage of insinuations, selective voices, and emotionally charged imagery, producing what can only be described as trial-by-media.
Yet the words themselves offer no blanket order for violence, let alone student killings.
The central “evidence” of this so-called investigation — the short leaked audio clip — that this documentary and the BBC feature appeared within days of each other, using the same core audio material and overlapping narrative structure, raises serious questions about coordination — if not lobbying. It is not implausible to suspect that this is not independent journalism but a synchronized narrative push, especially considering the actors it platformed and the timing with an ongoing legal trial.
2: The So-Called Smoking Gun – A Short Audio, A Long Stretch
In the audio materials, the individual in question can be heard stating:
“I have told them — if necessary, shoot… Students’ lives must be saved… But if anyone creates terror, if there’s no other way — you must act.”
The voice in the audio reveals a response to a crisis driven by necessity, not malice. The language is conditional and restrained: “if necessary,” “if anyone creates terror,” “if there’s no other way.” The intent is clear—safeguarding the lives of students while ensuring that no civilians are targeted. This is not an indiscriminate incitation to violence, but a careful instruction amidst chaos. The advice given is reactive, not preemptive; its target is the neutralization of terror, not the quelling of dissent. Describing this as criminalizing the situation is inaccurate. What is imparted is not a command to kill—it is a strained moment of executive decision-making under immense duress.
The circulated audio fails to depict any of the above indicators; rather, it shows a political figure struggling to navigate through a series of conflicting dilemmas—namely, the safety of innocent students on one hand and the instances of violent uprisings on the other.
It is essential to note that the use of force as a response to violent unrest is not, in itself, a crime. In fact, in many democracies, it is a recognized duty of the executive government to uphold law and order. There are precedents in history. During the bombings in London in 2005, for example, the then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, authorized a “shoot-to-kill” policy against suspected suicide bombers—a decision of the moment to prevent large-scale casualties. This controversial policy was the subject of much debate, yet it was not considered illegal. Rather, it was recognized as a difficult decision in a situation of perceived imminent threat.
The demarcation in the criminal sector takes place when:
• Force is exercised indiscriminately;
• Force is disproportionate to threat;
• Forcible tactics are in use against civilians without any factual justification.
In determining the occurrence of these variables in the Bangladesh scenario—namely, the feasibility of a violent insurgency, the reasonableness of police agencies’ reactions, and serious security issues for the safety of scholars—it will be important to undertake rigorous, evidence-based scholarship. Special care must be exercised to prevent hasty inferences.
Secondly, Al Jazeera’s reporting does not meet basic standards of evidentiary integrity, specifically for its inability to provide a specific timestamp for what it claims is an audio tape. This detail is important, and the omission is not trivial. After July 18, the situation in Bangladesh took a turn for the worse in all aspects. Nonviolent protests were gradually replaced by cases of violence. Security forces and some civilians became the targets for aggression—a phenomenon not alien to local informants or international observers, including those representing diplomatic missions and independent human rights monitoring groups—despite the fact that the vast majority of demonstrators participated in nonviolent activities. However, credible reports state that an armed group was behind various cases of destructive activities, including the burning down of government infrastructure and the attack on police officers.
In such situations, it is evident that a government leader has a constitutional and legal right to issue directives for the restoration of order and the protection of public and human life. This has always been upheld within democratic systems. In the case of riots at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, for example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Vice President Mike Pence coordinated with federal agencies to approve preemptive actions, including the use of armed forces, in order to restore order.
Third, the claim made by Al Jazeera about helicopter fire is a serious allegation; nevertheless, independent verification is lacking. Significantly, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), the organization involved in this case, has squarely denied any role, including with regard to this same operation. This denial, despite personal prejudices against the group, requires close scrutiny based on available evidence. To date, there is no conclusive forensic or audiovisual evidence incriminating aerial fire on the basis of government orders.
To criminalize this moment — absent a full and impartial inquiry — is to criminalize the very act of governing under pressure. What the BBC and Al Jazeera are advancing is not legal scrutiny rooted in evidence and procedure. It is a trial by the media, with guilt already assumed and context deliberately stripped away. That is not justice. It is narrative-building under the guise of accountability.
3: On Timing and Legality – Media Interference in Sub-Judice Trials
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of “36 Days in July” is its timing. As this documentary aired, a murder case against Sheikh Hasina was — and still is — sub-judice in Bangladesh. The leaked audio is likely to be submitted as part of legal proceedings. Broadcasting it widely, edited and uncontextualized, amounts to prejudicing public perception during a live trial.
Even more alarming is the on-screen appearance of Tajul Islam, the Chief Prosecutor of Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal. A man tasked with prosecuting war crimes is shown offering media commentary on a contemporary, unrelated case, one involving alleged crimes against humanity — and the accused is the former Prime Minister.
His public statements, during an ongoing investigation, compromise prosecutorial impartiality. In any judicial setting that respects the rule of law, such conduct would constitute grounds for recusal, if not outright disciplinary action.
This is not a question of press freedom. This is a question of whether the global media is enabling a collapse of due process in a post-coup Bangladesh.
4: The Hidden Hands – Biased Sourcing, Known Agendas
Media narratives are shaped not only by what is shown, but who is allowed to speak. In both the Al Jazeera and BBC features, the key voices are far from neutral.
Take Sadik Kayem, prominently featured in Al Jazeera’s documentary. Described as a “student protest leader,” Kayem is now widely known to have had deep affiliations with Shibir, the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami. This organization has a documented history of campus violence — particularly the horrific practice of tendon-cutting against political opponents. That a known Shibir affiliate is treated as a neutral witness, without disclosure of his ideological background, is not just irresponsible — it is deliberately deceptive.
Then there is Toby Cadman, the legal mind quoted by the BBC. For over a decade, Cadman has acted as legal advisor to convicted war criminals from Jamaat-e-Islami, representing them in international forums and pushing narratives that discredit the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh. His consistent alignment with Islamist political actors makes his inclusion in such a critical context ethically problematic and journalistically negligent.
By centering voices with undisclosed political stakes, the documentary becomes an instrument of soft propaganda, not truth-seeking.
5: The Political Optics – The Real Story Behind “36 Days in July”
The real scandal in Al Jazeera’s “36 Days in July” is not what it exposes — but what it ignores. It ignores the murder of police officers, the arson of state institutions, the coordination behind attacks. It paints student protesters as homogenous innocents and law enforcement as monsters — as if there were no infiltrations, no sabotage, no fifth columns.
The key voices they select to build this narrative — Sadik Kayem and Toby Cadman — are not dispassionate observers. Kayem, we now know, has deep connections to Shibir, the militant student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, a group known for political assassinations and campus terror. Cadman, for years, has acted as legal counsel to Jamaat figures accused of crimes against humanity.
This is not journalism — it is partisan storytelling, designed to de-legitimize the executive at a time when she is already under legal siege. It is no coincidence that these materials are surfacing while a murder case against Sheikh Hasina is sub-judice.
When international media amplify “evidence” mid-trial, and when the ICT Chief Prosecutor publicly comments in a partisan manner, we are no longer talking about freedom of press — we are talking about judicial interference by media proxy.
6: Conclusion – This Isn’t Journalism, It’s Trial by Media
Al Jazeera, instead of investigating the broader arc of violence — including the systematic targeting of law enforcement officers and the real architects of the uprising — has chosen to indict only one figure: the woman who stood at the center of power when the state was under siege.
The statement, presented as a factual assertion without any formal investigation, verification, or disclaimer to qualify the uncertainty, constitutes not only poor reporting but also unethical journalism and a violation of the Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists, drawn up in cooperation with the International Federation of Journalists. The obligation to “report exclusively on the facts of which they are informed of the source” and to “clearly distinguish facts and opinions” has been flouted.
If the recording is obtained through the DGFI, this principle of the Charter is also relevant:
“4. The journalist shall use only fair methods to obtain information, images, documents and data and he/she will always report his/her status as a journalist and will refrain from using hidden recordings of images and sounds, except where it is impossible for him/her to collect information that is overwhelmingly in the public interest. He/she will demand free access to all sources of information and the right to freely investigate all facts of public interest.”
By amplifying voices aligned with violent or ideological agendas, and airing untested evidence during an active trial, Al Jazeera has moved from journalism to something far more insidious — media-assisted regime change.
References
• BBC News Feature (July 2024)
“Sheikh Hasina leaked audio: What did Bangladesh PM say?”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4l1z5qd1vo
• Al Jazeera Documentary (July 2024)
HASINA – 36 DAYS IN JULY
https://share.google/hRoBz2LhK8N2y4Uk3
• Public profiles and history of Sadik Kayem
o Student movement organiser Shadik exposed as Shibir president https://tinyurl.com/y89fmz5s
o Who are the members of DU Chhatra Shibir committee? https://tinyurl.com/482dwm6t
• Background on Jamaat-e-Islami and Shibir’s violent history
o Jamaat-Shibir attack on police and the psychological benefits of violence. https://tinyurl.com/mrxhn8r5
o https://tinyurl.com/mrxhn8r5
o In the name of “right to protest”, BNP-Jamaat maintained notorious political culture: Joy. https://tinyurl.com/42xjtrka
• Toby Cadman – Legal Representation
o Toby Cadman: A crusader for rights or devil’s advocate?. https://tinyurl.com/tmpnmazz
o When the Ends Don’t Justify the Means: The ‘Morality of Justice’ in Bangladesh. https://tinyurl.com/4skzv5w2
• Bangladesh ICT – Role of Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam
o Conflict of Interest Surrounding Chief Prosecutor of International Crimes Tribunal: Whose Side Is He On—War Criminals or the State?. https://tinyurl.com/ycxe42er
o Questions emerge over Tajul Islam’s involvement in ATM Azharul’s case. https://tinyurl.com/yc6x94zs
o Is Sheikh Hasina’s Trial a Politically Driven “Kangaroo Court”?. https://tinyurl.com/yc6s9abu
• Judicial Ethics Guidelines
o Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. https://tinyurl.com/3ktdzxc4
• Comparative State Use of Force
o Emmanuel Macron’s Year of Cracking Heads. https://tinyurl.com/tf78zwdt
o Federal ‘occupying force’ to pull out of Portland, Oregon governor announces. https://tinyurl.com/2bh89n2w
o 31st G8 summit. https://tinyurl.com/23yhuy49
• International Federation of Journalists. https://www.ifj.org/actions
I am Iconus Clustus—justice activist, truth-seeker, and writer. My work is rooted in the unfinished struggle for recognition of the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide. Guided by philosophy, I write to provoke thought, stir conscience, and insist on justice as a shared responsibility.