Where David Bergman gets the NCP wrong
Since my stint at Amnesty International, David Bergman and I have been allies in opposing human rights abuses under Sheikh Hasina's authoritarian rule. We share considerably more than we dispute: a commitment to the rule of law, liberal democracy and human rights grounded in international law.
I have long admired David's willingness to speak truth to power. When he challenged alleged miscarriages of justice in the trials of Jamaat leaders under the Hasina government, his detractors labelled him a Jamaat sympathiser. Yet David did not flinch. He continued to scrutinise those exercising power under the Yunus administration and the present BNP government, as any principled critic should.
David's criticism of the National Citizen Party (NCP) in his Facebook post yesterday, however, is an unfortunate case of friendly fire.
David knows that NCP is not in government and that none of its members holds executive office. Indeed, he acknowledges as much in his post. Yet his argument assigns this young opposition party a responsibility that belongs to those who control detention and prosecution.
NCP has no authority over the imprisonment or prosecution of Asaduzzaman Noor, and its criticism of the coverage of Noor's birthday contains no demand to deny him bail or a fair trial.
David's criticism of NCP was therefore unfair and surprising. His vigilance remains invaluable to me and many others. On this occasion, however, his conclusions go beyond the evidence, and his criticism is directed at those who do not hold the power he is questioning.
Let me explain.
First, David's critique of NCP conflates two separate questions: whether Asaduzzaman Noor's detention is legally justified and whether a section of the media's celebratory coverage of his birthday is appropriate given his political record.
A careful reading of the press release shows that NCP questions only the second. Yet David concludes that NCP endorses the legality of Noor's detention.
The press release says nothing of the sort. It specifically notes that Noor was imprisoned over allegations of involvement in killings of students and members of the public, as well as corruption. The operative word is allegations.
Was this an oversight, David, or an error of judgement?
Moreover, NCP neither brought charges against Noor nor has any role in his detention, lawful or otherwise. Its members have nevertheless demanded, and will continue to demand, justice for the July killings, alleged corruption under the Hasina government and Noor's alleged role in enabling and legitimising that government's repression.
So, objecting to celebratory media coverage of Noor's birthday does not mean NCP endorses arbitrary detention based on allegations. You can question our silence on his allegedly unlawful detention, and you have every right to do so. But silence should not be construed as support.
It is also important to understand that many NCP leaders carry the scars of a revolution marked by bloodshed and sacrifice. It is reasonable to expect them to uphold due process. But it is equally important to recognise the pain and grievances of those who experienced repression.
They do not endorse unlawful detention. Nor are they yet able to set aside their suffering and campaign for someone they regard as having enabled that repression.
You may argue that this is a moral question. I agree. These young people are still grappling with their experiences and learning to navigate difficult questions of justice and accountability. Your expectations, and ours, may help them grow. But blaming them for a position they have not taken is unfair.
Second, the question of evidence.
David wrote that there was no evidence linking Noor to killings or injuries and questioned NCP's language suggesting his involvement in mass killings. He also criticised the party for invoking the grief of victims' families to support allegations he considered unsubstantiated.
Noor's alleged involvement in the July killings remains unresolved. The absence of publicly established evidence does not necessarily establish that no evidence exists. We simply do not know enough to reach a definitive conclusion.
The allegations concerning Noor, however, extend beyond July 2024. Consider the cases of Golam Rabbani, Atikur Rahman and Mohidul Islam. These opposition activists were accused of involvement in an attack on Noor's motorcade in December 2013.
According to their relatives and media reports, they were subsequently picked up by people believed to be security personnel and later found dead in early 2014. Rabbani's widow said fear of reprisals prevented her from seeking justice during Hasina's rule.
Following the July–August 2024 uprising, she filed a case naming Noor as the principal accused in her husband's murder.
David has known Bangladesh long enough to appreciate why the deaths of three people accused of attacking a powerful politician's motorcade warrant scrutiny, including an investigation into any possible involvement by that politician. I fully accept the presumption of innocence. These killings nevertheless deserve a thorough and credible investigation.
Noor's involvement has not been established in court. Nor should his artistic stature place him beyond scrutiny. The allegations against him are not confined to a single incident, and they cannot be dismissed without investigation. There is nothing inappropriate about acknowledging the grief of these families. They are victims entitled to truth and justice.
Third, Noor's corruption cases.
David's assertion that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has no case against Noor is incorrect. The ACC filed a case against Noor on July 29, 2025, alleging that he accumulated assets worth 5.37 crore taka beyond his known sources of income.
In September 2025, following an ACC petition, a Dhaka court ordered the attachment of his flats and land and froze 16 bank accounts. Does this prove corruption? No. Has Noor been cleared of the allegations? Not yet.
Public confidence in Bangladesh's police and judiciary remains weak. There is also widespread concern about corruption under Hasina's government, including allegations involving senior political figures.
These concerns do not establish Noor's guilt. That remains a matter for investigation and judicial determination. NCP described Noor's alleged corruption as "unprecedented." David may reasonably question that characterisation. But disputing the language does not justify overlooking the existence of a pending corruption case.
Fourth, Noor's artistic legacy.
David points to Noor's enduring popularity, including under previous BNP governments, in defending his artistic standing. Noor's artistic achievements are part of his public record. So are his political decisions.
He joined the Awami League, became one of its prominent cultural figures, served in its cabinet and held parliamentary office during elections whose credibility was widely challenged.
His record as a five-term Awami League lawmaker and as cultural affairs minister from 2014 to 2019 deserves examination alongside his contributions to acting and the arts.
His political choices, policies and responsibilities cannot be treated as incidental to his public legacy. Having said all this, I agree with David on several fundamental principles.
We must not allow "victor's justice" to undermine the July 2024 uprising. Those who suffered oppression must not become oppressors themselves. Every person accused of a crime must receive the safeguards against unlawful arrest and detention guaranteed by Article 33 of the Constitution.
This is non-negotiable if Bangladesh is to establish the rule of law. Neither accused persons nor victims should have to wait indefinitely for justice.
Article 35(3) of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial. Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that pretrial detention should not be the general rule.
As a human rights advocate, I firmly support these principles. I also support access to bail in most cases, subject to limited exceptions, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations.
Where detention is subsequently found unlawful, the affected person should have an enforceable right to compensation, as provided under Article 9(5) of the ICCPR. These positions may be unpopular in Bangladesh. They should nevertheless form the basis of a justice system committed to individual rights.
Finally, NCP's demand for a media commission should not be interpreted as an attempt to restrict press freedom.
The party seeks greater media accountability, particularly at a time when individuals associated with the former government remain influential in public life and competing accounts of the past continue to shape political debate.
That demand must coexist with the independence of the press. David and I remain committed to the same broader principles of human rights, accountability and the rule of law.
On this particular disagreement, I ask only that his criticism distinguishes between those exercising state power and those challenging how political events are portrayed.
—
Sultan Mohammed Zakaria is the Joint Convenor, NCP.
(This article was originally published on Sultan Mohammad Zakaria’s verified Facebook page and is republished here with author’s permission and with stylistic edits to conform to this publication’s editorial standards)