On the morning of 23 June 2026, Mahfuzur Rahman Shishir went to Dhanmondi 32 to cover a political procession. He is a multimedia reporter for the daily Sokal. The procession belonged to Jamaat-e-Islami, currently the principal opposition party in parliament. At some point during the programme, someone in that crowd decided Shishir looked like an Awami League sympathiser. That was enough. He was grabbed by the collar, punched, and kicked after he fell. His colleagues had to drag him out and take him to hospital.

We need to be clear about what happened before we get to the law.

A journalist was physically assaulted, in broad daylight, on a public street, by members of a registered political party that holds 68 seats in the national parliament. He was not accused of anything he did. He was accused of a political affiliation, without any evidence, by people who then decided to enforce their suspicion with their fists. Jamaat-e-Islami has since called it an unfortunate misunderstanding and promised an internal review. With respect, that response does not come close to addressing what occurred.

Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh protects freedom of thought, conscience, and speech, and it expressly protects the freedom of the press. That protection does not come with a carve-out for political processions. A journalist covering a public event does not surrender his constitutional rights by being there. And a political party, whether in government or in opposition, does not acquire the authority to physically remove journalists it finds inconvenient.

Articles 31 and 32 make the state’s obligation equally plain. Every citizen of this country has the right to protection of law and the right to personal liberty. These are not aspirational statements. They are binding constitutional guarantees, and their enforcement is the responsibility of the state, not of the party whose members committed the assault. Internal review is not a legal remedy. It is a party management exercise, and the two should not be confused.

There is something else that needs to be said about the context. This procession was organised specifically to counter any possible public activity by Awami League supporters on the party’s founding anniversary, given that AL’s political activities are currently banned. That is a legitimate political objective, whatever one thinks of the underlying ban. But the moment Jamaat activists began assigning political identities to journalists and using violence to enforce those assignments, they moved from political activity into something the law treats very differently. The constitutional protection of press freedom exists precisely because journalists must be able to cover all sides of political life, including events organised by parties they may be perceived to oppose.

The Multimedia Reporters Association has demanded accountability within 24 hours and declared a boycott of covering Jamaat programmes until that demand is met. That response is proportionate. The reporters of this country, who work under genuinely difficult conditions, are entitled to expect that the state will act when one of them is beaten on a public street. Law enforcement must register this case, investigate it properly, and ensure that those responsible face the legal consequences that apply to any assault on a citizen of Bangladesh.

We also expect the BNP-led government to speak to this clearly. Not as a statement targeting the opposition, but as a basic assertion of constitutional order. The government’s obligation to protect press freedom does not change depending on which party’s activists are responsible for violating it. A government that stays silent when journalists are assaulted, regardless of who does the assaulting, is a government that is failing one of its most fundamental constitutional duties.

Shishir asked from his hospital bed whether grabbing a journalist by the collar and kicking him represents freedom of the press. It does not, and no expression of party regret makes it so.