This two-part blog examines how transitional governments in the Global South systematically suppress press freedom through “weaponized legalism”—the use of formally legal procedures to violate fundamental rights while maintaining constitutional legitimacy. Part 1 analyzes how Bangladesh’s interim government, despite promising unrestricted media freedom, prosecuted 640 journalists within eight months using anti-terrorism laws, accreditation revocations, and financial investigations. Part 2 broadens the analysis to Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Egypt, demonstrating that weaponized legalism represents a transnational methodology requiring both domestic institutional reform and enhanced international accountability mechanisms.

 The Promise-Performance Paradox

On August 8, 2024, Muhammad Yunus assumed office as Chief Adviser of Bangladesh’s interim government following student-led protests that toppled Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The transition generated widespread expectations that press freedom—severely constrained under Hasina’s 15-year rule—would finally be protected. On September 11, 2024, Yunus publicly affirmed a categorical commitment to unrestricted media freedom, declaring that “full freedom of the press and expression has already been guaranteed.”

Yet within eight months, the interim government systematically targeted 640 journalists through criminal prosecutions, accreditation revocations, and financial investigations. By December 14, 2025, prominent journalist Anis Alamgir remained in custody pending trial under anti-terrorism charges for social media criticism. In August 2025, journalist Monjurul Alam Panna faced identical charges for participating in a constitutional roundtable discussion—core political speech protected under international law.

This contradiction exemplifies the promise-performance gap: a distinctive constitutional phenomenon wherein transitional governments violate fundamental rights through law-based procedures that preserve formal legitimacy while achieving substantive suppression. While this phenomenon extends across Global South jurisdictions experiencing transitional governance, Part 1 focuses specifically on Bangladesh’s mechanisms of press suppression—anti-terrorism law weaponization, accreditation revocation, and financial investigation—to establish the analytical framework before examining parallel patterns in Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Egypt in Part 2.

Weaponized Legalism: Theoretical Framework

Weaponized legalism describes the systematic deployment of formally legal procedures to suppress fundamental rights—particularly press freedom—while maintaining the appearance of constitutional governance. Drawing on Ran Hirschl’s theory of abusive constitutional borrowing and Tamir Moustafa’s analysis of constitutional capture in authoritarian contexts, weaponized legalism extends these frameworks to transitional democracies specifically.

The concept operates through five characteristic mechanisms:

1. Nominally legal authorization: Prosecutions proceed under formally enacted legislation, creating procedural legitimacy through courts and constitutional procedures.
2. Substantive illegality: Despite formal legal authorization, charges violate international human rights standards established in ICCPR Article 19(3) and UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 34.
3. Selective enforcement: Laws ostensibly of general applicability are selectively deployed against journalists and opposition figures while remaining unenforced against favoured speech.
4. Transitional vulnerability exploitation: Transitional governments exploit institutional weakness and judicial deference to consolidate power before institutional checks crystallize.
5. Formal-substantive dissociation: The gap between formal procedures (courts issuing warrants, bail hearings) and substantive outcomes (journalism criminalized through terrorism provisions) creates the promise-performance gap.

Bangladesh: Mechanisms Of Suppression

Anti-Terrorism Act Weaponization

The Anti-Terrorism Act (Amended 2023) has become Bangladesh’s primary instrument for criminalizing journalism. The statute permits indefinite detention and convictions carrying life sentences, while defining “terrorism” as any act “intended to cause fear or insecurity” with formulations so expansive that legitimate journalism readily qualifies.

Anis Alamgir’s arrest exemplifies this mechanism: authorities charged him under anti-terrorism provisions based on social media posts criticizing government policy, lacking any connection to terrorist activity. The UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 34 on Article 19 of the ICCPR establishes rigorous standards: States must demonstrate “in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken.” Bangladesh has submitted no such justification for journalist prosecutions, violating each requirement.

Accreditation Weaponization

Between October-November 2024, Bangladesh revoked press credentials for 167 journalists on grounds of “alleged links with the previous government.” This mechanism operates as prior restraint—government pre-emptive determination of who may practice journalism—rendering professional journalism impossible without official sanction.

Financial Investigation as Coercive Mechanism

From August 2024–March 2025, Bangladesh’s Financial Intelligence Unit issued investigation notices against 85 journalists, requesting comprehensive financial records and family business information. This mechanism targets journalists’ economic survival without formal prosecution, achieving deterrent effects equivalent to criminal charges while exploiting regulatory grey zones inadequately addressed by international law.

These Bangladesh-specific mechanisms are not isolated; Part 2 explores how similar patterns of weaponized legalism appear in Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, Egypt and beyond, and what this reveals about global accountability gaps.