A subtle but unmistakable effort is underway in some quarters to normalise the politics of the banned Awami League, echoing the familiar refrain of fugitive former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina: “What crime have I committed? What is my crime?”

In a recent Facebook video, journalist Golam Mortoza–now serving as Press Minister at the Bangladesh embassy in Washington–outlined why, in his view, neither Hasina nor her Awami League should be allowed to contest in future elections.

According to Mortoza, Hasina does not regard the killing of 1,500–2,000 people, the blinding of 500–700 others, or the crippling of 20,000–30,000 more as crimes. Her reasoning, he said, rests on the belief that because her father “gave the country independence,” she holds a moral licence to commit such acts.

When Hasina asks “What is my crime?”, Mortoza argued, her tone is mirrored by those now questioning why the Awami League should be barred from the polls.

Many of these voices, he said, belong to beneficiaries of her regime–individuals who enjoyed extraordinary privileges and perks, criticised certain ministers or cronies when dissatisfied, but remained steadfastly loyal to her.

Mortoza stressed that the issue is not personal loyalty to Hasina but the fact that Bangladesh, in his view, became “free” after August 5, regaining the right to openly criticise anyone, whether Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, the NCP, or other figures.

Yet some of these same people, he said, now mourn attacks on Awami League leaders’ homes while ignoring that Dr. Yunus could equally be a target if such logic is applied.

He also dismissed the argument that only Awami League members with criminal cases should be barred from running, calling it a “backdoor defence” designed to leave the party’s return to power open.

Mortoza cited the case of Kolimullah–a deeply corrupt figure who should have been arrested the moment the interim government took over. His eventual arrest, on solid corruption charges, was spun into a free-speech issue, with supporters claiming he was jailed for criticising the government.

Mortoza noted that the same distortion is now being applied to the Awami League’s ban, portraying it as a political injustice rather than an accountability measure.

According to Mortoza, the Awami League cannot be separated from its sole leader, Sheikh Hasina–a leader who has openly vowed to kill again if she returns to power.

These are not empty threats, he said, but promises backed by a record of action: from hanging political opponents under the guise of trying “war criminals” to pledging to execute students and youth who led the July uprising.

She is already on trial for mass killings; her own words confirm her intent to repeat them.

The party’s cultural wing, Mortoza said, worked to legitimise every crime–from killings and enforced disappearances to the notorious midnight elections. Those who gained from this system naturally wish for its return.

But the case against the Awami League, as Mortoza laid it out, is unequivocal:

It killed citizens in cold blood, it abducted and disappeared people, it laundered hundreds of thousands of crores of taka, it entrenched corruption at every level of governance, and it still openly threatens mass violence.

A party overthrown by a mass uprising, whose leader has fled, cannot simply walk back into an election, he argued.

Mortoza said the state should not be in the business of rehabilitating a defeated force. If Awami League loyalists wish to defend their party, let them–but their arguments must be countered publicly and factually, not suppressed through measures that only project government insecurity.

With the election date now set, Mortoza warned, Awami League sympathisers are already resurfacing, including cultural operatives who went underground after the uprising.

This re-emergence, he argued, could have been blunted through timely investigations and prosecutions into both cultural and economic crimes committed during the party’s rule.

He also dismissed claims that the Awami League still commands 60 million votes or 35% of the electorate, noting these figures are based on elections from decades ago.

Nearly half of today’s voters have never participated in a credible poll, making old numbers meaningless. No one imagined Hasina could be ousted the way she was, Mortoza said–but the youth and students led that charge, and their victory must not be undermined.

For this election, he concluded, there can be no question of allowing a defeated force, accused of crimes against humanity, back into contention.

—