The ongoing “Shahbagh Blockade” has thrust the demand to ban the Awami League into the spotlight. Although there is largely a consensus on holding the ousted party accountable for its actions over the past 16 years, not all sections agree on an outright ban.
Protesters—camping in Shahbagh since Friday night—are demanding that the interim government formally outlaw the Awami League. They insist the blockade will persist until an official notification is issued declaring the party illegal.
Mass gatherings at sites commemorating the July uprising have erupted nationwide, marking what organizers call the “second uprising phase.” From Shahbagh, they aim to press a three-point agenda demanding the ban.
Furthermore, at 2pm on Saturday, a five-member delegation of the Gono Odhikar Parishad submitted an eight-point memorandum to the Interim Chief Adviser’s office, calling for the Awami League to be classified as a fascist party and subjected to a genocide trial.
Various political groups have thrown their support behind the ban. The Gono Songhoti Andolon contends that the Awami League’s fifteen-year rule amounted to a reign of terror, characterized by enforced disappearances, corruption, suppression of dissent, voter disenfranchisement, looting and money laundering.
“More than 1,500 students, workers and civilians were massacred during protests in July and August, and thousands more were injured,” said Gono Songhoti Andolon Chief Coordinator Zonayed Saki.
Gono Songhoti Andolon Executive Coordinator Abul Hasan Rubel warned that only formal proscription and legal action could halt further atrocities.
NCP convener Nahid Islam told reporters that his party’s demands include declaring the Awami League a terrorist organization and amending the International Crimes Tribunal Act to allow party-based trials, as well as issuing a July Declaration.
Movement leaders have vowed to maintain the Shahbagh standoff indefinitely. Blockade points have multiplied across Dhaka, and organizers warn that, should the government delay, demonstrators from every corner of the country will converge on the capital once more.
In contrast, BNP Standing Committee member Gayeshwar Chandra Roy argued at a 12-party alliance rally at the National Press Club on Saturday that banning political parties “never solves any problem.”
He insisted that democratic norms and the rule of law must determine which parties remain legitimate.
BNP’s senior figures, speaking to the Dhaka Tribune, echoed this view: while they back calls for fair trials of the Awami League’s leadership for alleged atrocities against BNP activists, they oppose an outright ban, warning that suppression drives movements underground and often strengthens them.
A statement from the Chief Adviser’s Press Wing on Friday said the government is “seriously considering” the various ban petitions. Talks with political parties are underway, and a final decision will follow further consultation. Activists involved in the blockade have been urged to exercise patience in the meantime.
A senior politician, preferring anonymity, cautioned that banning established parties such as the Awami League, BNP or Jamaat often has the unintended effect of allowing their leaders and supporters to regroup underground. “Look at Jamaat-e-Islami,” he noted. “After its 2013 ban, it became more organized and vocal over the next fifteen years.”
Legally, the government’s power to proscribe parties is constrained. Under Section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2009, authorities may ban any person or organization believed to threaten national sovereignty. Yet the Political Parties Ordinance of 1978 requires that any proposal to dissolve a registered party be referred to the High Court, which hears arguments from both sides and issues a binding judgment.
Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua of the Supreme Court said: “Executive power alone cannot proscribe a political party; all legal criteria must be met, and the ultimate decision must rest with the judiciary.”
As the Shahbagh standoff drags on and legal debates intensify, Bangladesh faces a pivotal choice: to use proscription as a tool against alleged tyranny, or to uphold democratic safeguards that ensure every party—even the most controversial—has access to due process.
