The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), billed as the world’s largest journalist body, issued a statement on Tuesday about the death of Bangladeshi journalist Bibhuranjan Sarker–only to retract it two days later amid heavy criticism, before re-uploading a revised version with some lines removed and one added.

The original statement accused a senior official in Bangladesh’s interim government of being linked to Sarker’s apparent suicide.

It was denounced as factually inaccurate and defamatory. The amended version, critics say, did little better, merely omitting some lines and inserting a denial. Officials and media sources described both versions as misinformation that damaged the credibility of a global body like the IFJ.

Sarker, senior assistant editor at the Bengali daily Ajker Patrika, died earlier this week in what colleagues and police described as an apparent suicide.

While his death was widely mourned as a personal tragedy, critics argue that the IFJ compounded the grief by relying on unverified claims from its Bangladeshi affiliate, the Bangladesh Manobadhikar Sangbadik Forum (BMSF).

In its original statement, the IFJ alleged that Shafiqul Alam, Press Secretary to the Chief Adviser who also headed the Press Wing of the interim government, had threatened to revoke Ajker Patrika’s license, branded eight of its journalists as “friends of fascists,” demanded their dismissal, and pressured the paper to pull an editorial linking militants to the August 2024 uprising.

It further claimed that Sarker had been placed on indefinite leave as a result.

The revised statement added only one caveat: “this is an allegation the press secretary and his department have strongly denied.”

But some senior journalist at Ajker Patrika whom Bangla Outlook confirmed that no such threats were ever made. Neither Alam nor his office had spoken to Sarker directly. Crucially, the disputed editorial was not even authored by Sarker, as the IFJ itself had noted.

The article in question, titled “History’s Eventful August”, was written by Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) leader Mazharul Islam Babla, who argued that militants were involved in the August 2024 uprisings.

Yet the revised IFJ statement still claimed: “after the threats, Sarkar said he was placed on indefinite leave by the paper, according to BMSF. The opinion piece has since been removed”--without explaining how an article written by Babla could have endangered Sarker.

According to information obtained by Bangla Outlook, the Press Wing did request corrections, but only to two sentences in Babla’s piece–sentences Sarker had not written.

One wrongly asserted that Islamist extremists had meticulously planned killings during the July uprising, an official said. The other falsely suggested that the army, not former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her security detail, had decided to fly her to Delhi.

How the controversy had begun

Multiple sources told Bangla Outlook that the controversy stems from an email allegedly written by Sarker and later published by bdnews24.com. In it, Sarker listed a series of grievances–many tied to systemic injustices he claimed to have suffered–and suggested these drove him to take his own life.

What remains baffling, critics say, is how the IFJ, a globally respected body, issued such a sweeping statement based on an unverified email and then drew the conclusion that the head of the Chief Adviser’s Press Wing was connected to Sarker’s apparent suicide–even though Sarker had not authored the disputed article at the center of the claim.

Several senior journalists believe the IFJ’s local affiliate, the Bangladesh Manobadhikar Sangbadik Forum (BMSF), played a pivotal role in shaping this narrative.

Formed in 1991, BMSF has long styled itself as a defender of press freedom. But like many institutions under Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year authoritarian rule, it reportedly became compromised.

Its once-active Facebook page has been scrubbed of content, and during years of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and repeated crackdowns on the media, BMSF was largely silent. Its sudden resurgence under the interim government has therefore raised deep suspicion within Bangladesh’s journalistic community.

By uncritically echoing BMSF’s account, the IFJ did both Sarker and journalism a grave disservice. It lent international legitimacy to uncorroborated claims–including the unfounded allegation that the Press Wing pressured Ajker Patrika to retract a story–and in doing so, elevated a document that might otherwise have been dismissed.

Worse, the IFJ compounded its mistake by linking Sarker’s death to the killings of two other journalists in wholly unrelated cases.

Critics argue this false equivalence is not merely sloppy but reckless: it trivializes genuine cases of press-targeted violence and undermines public trust in journalism itself.

The IFJ’s quiet retraction of its statement before restoration, is, in effect, an admission of failure—one rooted in its continued reliance on a problematic local partner like BMSF. For a body of the IFJ’s stature, due diligence is not optional; it is a professional obligation.

Unless it exercises far greater caution in vetting both its sources and its affiliates, its credibility will remain in jeopardy.

—