Salahuddin's Disappearance

A spectre of insecurity is looming large on the citizens of the country. This feeling is particularly pronounced among the opposition political activists. At a time when people were reeling from the trauma of near-disappearance of the prominent political figure, media personality and likely mayoral candidate for Dhaka North Mahmudur Rahman, they were appalled to learn the dreadful news of disappearance of Salahuddin Ahmed, leader, former minister of state and serving spokesperson of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party. 

Salahuddin was picked up late evening from an apartment at Section 3 of the northern township of Uttara. His family claimed that members of the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) took him away. Following a writ petition filed by the spouse of the victim and at the instruction of the High Court all four agencies of the police – Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP), Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Special Branch (SB) submitted separate reports to the Attorney General's office, denying any role in Salahuddin's disappearance. In its statement the DMP authorities claimed that Ahmed had disappeared on his own, and no law enforcement agency had arrested him. Taking cue from the accounts of all four agencies in his submission to the Court the Attorney General contended that the victim staged a drama simply to embarrass the government and the LEAs. In hindsight, it appears that the esteemed Officer of the Court laid misplaced faith in the authenticity of the reports submitted by the LEAs. 

The high profile nature of the case drew intense media attention. The correspondents of electronic and print media filed a number of reports after visiting the site of occurrence and talking with the guards of the household concerned and others in the neighbourhood. There was a fair degree of likeness in the presentation of facts among those reports. However, they stood in pointed contrast to what the LEAs claimed in their testimonies to the Court. 

In their submission the police said that it did not find evidence of anyone picking up Salahuddin from the Uttara house against his wishes. The police quoting the security guards stated that a guest of one of the apartments left the house in a car with four-five others at around 10pm. They also referred to the guards' observation that those with whom the guest left the house did not appear to be law enforcers and there was no indication that he was coerced into joining them. The police stated that the guards informed them that none of those who came to the house wore uniforms nor did they have any firearms in their possession. The police stated that the vehicle parked did not appear to the guards to be of any LEA. Based on the above, the police claimed that none of its personnel went to the said house on the night in question and involvement of any other agency could not be traced.

The claims of the police differ substantially from what the guards of the apartment block and those in the vicinity reported to the journalists. 

Firstly, in contrast to the police version, various dailies citing the guards reported that several vehicles were used in the operation. Of those, two were parked on both ends of the Road 13/B of Uttara Section 3 and another four were parked in front of the concerned house. The number of occupants of the vehicles was estimated to be 20-25, of whom 6 or 7 entered the premises. 

Secondly, the police stated that the guards informed them of their ignorance about the political affiliation of the victim, who the owners of the house introduced to the latter as 'Raihan'. A prominent English daily quoted guard Akhterul whose statement was exactly opposite to what the police claimed. Akhterul observed, "I knew he was a BNP leader. I saw him many times on TV. He came to this house four days ago." 

Thirdly, press reports contradicted the police version that the guards did not think the guests with whom the victim allegedly went off were members of any LEA. The reports published did not corroborate this. They inform that when the guards demanded to know the identity of the persons who entered the premise, they were told that they belonged to LEA. A few brandished their detective branch identity cards that were tied to their belts. In one instance one guard preferring anonymity told a reporter that he was subjected to interrogation. Included among the questions were if other political leaders visited Mr. Raihan and if so, who they were. 

Fourthly, the media reports also challenge the veracity of the police claim that the guards did not see any firearms. A few reports citing the guards noted that they saw pistols under their jackets of some members of the team. The guards also stated that they were subjected to slapping and were asked to keep quiet while the operation was on. 

Fifthly, while the police claimed that the guards did not think the victim was coerced into the vehicle, a number of reports citing the guards note that Salahuddin was blindfolded with his hands tied behind his back before being pushed into one of the vehicles parked outside. 

Finally, in their submission to the court the police claimed that neighbours did not think the LEAs picked anyone up that night. One Bangla daily, quoting a security guard of the Uttara Sector 3 Society, reported that he had seen a microbus standing at the entrance of Road 11 with 6-7 well built persons hanging around. They introduced themselves as members of a LEA. Another guard reported that he saw someone being picked up. Upon enquiry by the guard, one of the members involved in the act told him that members of a LEA were apprehending a criminal. He further informed although those involved did not don any uniform, one of them was carrying a rifle. A correspondent of a leading Bangla daily reported that security guards of three buildings close to the site of occurrence believed that the armed intruders were members of a LEA. 

Thus one finds there exist major discrepancies in the narratives of what had taken place in Uttara Section 3 on the fateful night of March 10. The submissions of LEAs stand out in sharp contrast to the course of events reported in the media. A close scrutiny would make any discernable observer cast grave doubt on the genuineness of the statements furnished by LEAs to the apex court of the land.

 [Information for this article was collected from 15 and 16 March 2015 editions of The Daily Star, New Age, Prothom Alo, Manab Zamin and Kaler Kantho]

The writer teaches International Relations at the University of Dhaka. He researches and writes on rights and migration issues.