Journalist’s lawyers in the courtroom is unacceptable

The harassment of journalists in the courtroom Daka by the lawyer section is a serious attack on the freedom of the press. Such actions not only violate the rights of journalists, but also threaten the very basis of transparency and accountability in the judicial system. Attempting to intimidate the media causes serious concern about increasing hostility to independent reporting in Bangladesh.

According to some media reports, attorneys representing Salman F Rahman, a former Private Advisor, displaced Prime Minister Sheikh Hasin, created a handkerchief yesterday and verbally persecuted journalists working in court in court in court in court (CMM) Dakki during the hearing of some criminal cases presented in the July uprising.

Further reports note that shortly after the Magistrates of Daka MA Azharul Islam joined the courtroom this morning, several lawyers encountered a journalist, accusing him of photographing, which he denied. Then they asked why journalists were present in the courtroom. Despite the repeated objections from the journalist, another lawyer again accused him of photographing. This led to the lawyers shouting, creating chaos in the courtroom.

Journalists play a crucial role in ensuring that the public remains informed of significant lawsuits. For the sake of not closed by wards that aim to act in secret – not an institution where justice is served in the presence of public control. Asked about the availability of journalists, aggressively confronting them and mistakenly accusing them of photographing or video, these lawyers intentionally sought to create a environment of fear and obstacles.

Journalists are allowed to cover lawsuits in many countries of the world, providing transparency and accountability in the judiciary. In the United States, lawsuits are usually open to the media, and many lawsuits are even television, especially at the state level. The United Kingdom also allows journalists to cover the trials. In Canada, most court hearings are open to journalists, but speech is limited. Australia and New Zealand adhere to such politicians, which allows the media, but limiting cameras in many cases. In Germany, France and the Netherlands, lawsuits are usually open to the press, although recording and broadcasting are limited. In India, journalists can report court cases, but live coverage is not allowed. South Africa allows you to illuminate the media, including a live broadcasting. Japan also provides journalists with access to the courtrooms, but with strict rules of photographs and records.

The behavior of lawyers who should be committed to legal and ethical standards is deeply alarming. If lawyers resort to intimidation to prevent journalists from doing their work, it raises the question: what should they hide? The legal community should remember that their role is to perform justice, not to act as performers.

It is also a matter of hope that the state’s leading lawyers confirmed the right of journalists to be present in the courtroom and collect news. However, only words are not enough. The authorities should take immediate and decisive measures to ensure that journalists could act freely without fear of harassment or intimidation. Those responsible for creating chaos in the courtroom should be held accountable and measures should be taken to prevent such cases in the future.

At this time, Bangladesh’s independent journalism is more important than anyone. The right to a free report should be protected, especially when powerful people seek to evade control. The legal system must serve fairness, not be a battlefield to silence critical votes. The judiciary, the government and civil society must firmly resist any attempts to suppress the press – because without free and fearless media, democracy itself is at risk.