Purbachal raid: 85 jailed, faces shown, and questions that remain

Eighty-five people were sent to jail within a day of a police raid on a house in Purbachal. Within hours, videos showing their faces were all over news websites and social media.

Two questions now hang over the case. Were the arrests and convictions lawful? And who decided that the people held should be shown to the public?

What happened

Detectives from the Dhaka Metropolitan Police's Detective Branch (DB) raided the three-storey house on the night of 19 October. It stands in Police Officers' Housing Society-1 and belongs to Abdullah Al Zahir, an Additional DIG, which is a senior police rank.

They detained 85 people: 59 men and 26 women. Early reports put the figure at 84.

Police said they were targeting drug use and "DJ parties". Zahir says the house was rented out through online platforms, under rules that banned drugs and illegal activity. Hours after the raid, he was withdrawn from his post and attached to Police Headquarters.

The DB's own seizure list shows what officers found: four bottles of alcohol, one yaba tablet, equipment for taking drugs and a small amount of kush, a type of cannabis.

All 85 were sentenced the same day. Special Metropolitan Magistrate Asaduzzaman gave each woman 15 days in jail and a Tk500 fine. Each man got one month and a Tk1,000 fine. Prothom Alo reported that the sentences were handed down at DB headquarters.

The magistrate told Prothom Alo that no drug tests were done and that the accused had pleaded guilty. Their families tell a different story. Relatives told the newspaper that the detainees signed papers believing they were being released on bond.

Who let the cameras in?

Videos reviewed for this report show people filming the detainees at close range inside the house. Their faces were not blurred.

DB chief Shafiqul Islam told The Business Standard (TBS) that officers had been told not to take journalists on raids and to protect the identities of the people they detain. "We are looking into the matter," he said.

That leaves basic questions unanswered. Who let the camera crews in? Who released the footage? No official has responded yet.

'That is not journalism'

Sam Jahan, an internationally acclaimed journalist with a strong track record working for major international media outlets, is a founding convener of Bangladeshi Journalists in International Media (BJIM). He refused to call the people filming journalists.

"I refuse to admit that what happened at that house was journalism at all," he said.

He described one video in which those filming order detainees to lower their hands and show their faces. "Shoving cameras in their faces demanding 'show your face' — that is not journalism," he said.

For Jahan, ethics are what make journalism a profession. "When you ignore ethics, whatever else you are doing is just content creation, not journalism," he said. He called the people at the house "pure content creators looking for views and revenue".

He added that private lives are not the public's business. "What people do behind closed doors in their private homes is not the concern of the police or the public, nor is it in the public interest," he said.

He blamed the police too. "The police's morality here was extremely low, and these content creators turned themselves into police stooges," he said. Some officers use such creators for publicity, he said, so their bosses can see that "Officer X conducted a raid here".

Clicks, cash and inexperience

Qadaruddin Shishir, editor of The Dissent and a former Bangladesh editor of AFP Fact Check, said police often invite hand-picked journalists and content creators to film raids. He called it "a despicable practice". He was talking about the trend in general, not this raid in particular.

In his view, both sides benefit from this practice. The police get "a PR boost" and the journalists get "views and money". He also blamed newsrooms. "Many of those who go to film these videos, despite representing major media outlets, are in reality untrained junior reporters," he said.

He accused outlets of chasing "online revenue at any cost". "Most media outlets are not practising journalism with this content; they are running a content business," he said. "They should rename themselves 'content outlets'."

Muktadir Rashid Romeo, also of BJIM, went further. He called it "dirty journalism" and said the way channels broadcast the raid was "extremely vulgar".

He warned that public anger towards journalists is growing and that reporters could face threats to their safety as a result.

Had it happened to him, he said, he would go to court. "If it were me, if my pictures were broadcast on television or YouTube in the name of 'exposing' me like this, I would have filed a lawsuit against both the police and the journalists," he said.

He also wants answers about the gathering itself. "We also need to look into how and by what method so many people were gathering at a police officer's house, and whether that was legal or illegal," he said.

One source, one story

Golam Iftekhar Mahmud, editor and publisher of Dhaka Stream, criticised outlets for relying only on what the police gave them.

"Reporting news in a one-sided, partisan manner based strictly on the information, video, and narrative provided by a single agency is both unethical and a form of injustice," he said.

He said people facing allegations must be given the chance to respond and defend themselves.

In his view, much of the coverage left out key facts, including that no drug tests were done and why the people had gathered in the first place.

He also had a warning for his fellow reporters: "These very practices could one day be turned against journalists themselves."

What the law says

Barrister Imran A Siddiq, a senior Supreme Court lawyer, answered questions for this report.

The raid: Police don't always need a warrant. An officer of sub-inspector rank or above can go in without one if they believe a drug offence is taking place, as long as they write down why. At night, they must also record why waiting until daylight was too risky. "It cannot be said that the raid was unlawful simply because it was conducted without a warrant," Siddiq wrote.

The arrests: This is where the trouble may lie. "While a raid may be lawful, that by itself does not justify the arrest of all persons present at the premises," he said. "En masse arrests are not contemplated by the law." Police must record a reason for arresting each person.

The trial: A fast summary trial is not unlawful in itself, Siddiq said. Because a Special Metropolitan Magistrate passed the sentences, it does not appear to have been a mobile court, though police and the media have described it both ways. Holding it at DB headquarters does not automatically make it invalid. But "legal complications may arise if access by lawyers, relatives or the public was prevented, or if the proceeding remained under effective police control," he said.

The charge: Court papers seen by Prothom Alo cite Section 36(5) of the Narcotics Control Act. Siddiq said that section "does not punish mere attendance at an event". It covers someone who is intoxicated and disturbs the public peace, and both must be proven for each person.

The drug tests: The law does not demand them. "A toxicological test is not a pre-condition for conviction," Siddiq said.

The guilty pleas: These need checking. A signature is binding unless it was forced, but the record must show that the charge was explained and the plea was given freely. "A signature on a pre-prepared document of the Police would not necessarily amount to an admission of guilt," he said.

The footage: Police may film a raid as evidence, but "the law does not automatically authorise public circulation," he said.

What detainees can do: They should get certified copies of their case records. They can appeal within 30 working days and ask for an inquiry into how the footage was released.

Pressure grows

On 25 October, 101 citizens demanded the detainees' release and an independent inquiry. They included the economist Anu Muhammad, TIB executive director Iftekharuzzaman and the photographer Shahidul Alam. Four rights groups made similar demands: BLAST, Human Rights Support Society, Naripokkho and Sopran. They also called for action against those who spread the detainees' photos and personal details.

Inspector General of Police Md Ali Hossain Fakir defended the raid and questioned the citizens' statement. "You have freedom, but that does not mean you can do whatever you wish," he said.

The police account has also changed. DB sources first said the raid followed intelligence about regular drug parties. Later, Elias Kabir, deputy commissioner of the DB's Uttara division, told Prothom Alo: "We had no prior intelligence regarding the party at the residence." Officers acted on instructions from senior officers, he said.

Where things stand

Some of the detainees are now fighting their convictions. At least 30, including seven women, have lodged appeals. At least seven women have been granted bail by a Dhaka court, and four have been released, The Daily Star reported on 29 October.

There has been no word of an independent inquiry. No one has explained why the number of detainees rose from 84 to 85.

The questions that remain

The police still need to say who let cameras into the house and what evidence linked each person to a crime. Newsrooms need to explain why they showed these faces. Answering either question does not mean excusing any offence that may have been committed. So far, neither answer has come.