Two young men who had been publicly accused of same-sex conduct at Dr Muhammad Shahidullah Hall of the University of Dhaka have alleged that they were intimidated and forced to make statements that were subsequently recorded and circulated online as a “confession” to homosexuality. The allegations emerged on 3 August, two days after videos involving the men began circulating on social media and several days after the original incident inside Room 311 of the hall on 27 July. The two visitors, identified in subsequent reporting as Farhan Bhuiyan and Arman, disputed the narrative surrounding the viral footage and said the statements shown in the videos had not been made voluntarily. Their account introduced a substantially different version of an incident that had already exposed them publicly to allegations concerning their perceived sexual orientation.

Farhan told Dhaka Post that he had travelled to Dhaka for treatment for a heart condition and was accompanied by his friend Arman. He stayed in the room of his relative Ibrahim Khalil, Assistant General Secretary of the Dr Muhammad Shahidullah Hall Students’ Union. According to Farhan, Khalil left for class the following morning, while he and Arman went outside for some time before returning to the room. Farhan said that after Arman had taken a shower, the two were sitting beside a window and watching a drama on a mobile phone when Khalil’s roommate, Yusuf Arefin Rumel, entered and began questioning them about their behaviour. Farhan alleged that Rumel repeatedly interrogated them and pressured them to admit to homosexuality. According to his account, they were instructed to say words to the effect that they had made a mistake and had been misled by “Satan”. Farhan said they were frightened and under pressure and therefore repeated what they had been instructed to say. He further alleged that Rumel initially denied that he was recording them but subsequently recorded their statements, while presenting himself as an influential person and pressuring them to speak according to his instructions. Arman separately gave a similar account, saying that they had been watching a drama on a mobile phone when Rumel entered the room, reprimanded them and later instructed them to make a video statement admitting a “mistake”. Arman said they made the statement because of the pressure they were facing and stated that Rumel was alone with them during the incident.

These accounts directly challenged the way the footage had initially been presented publicly. When videos from the incident circulated on Facebook beginning on 1 August, early social-media posts and subsequent news coverage portrayed the recorded statements as an admission or “confession” that the two visitors had been involved in same-sex conduct. Some reports reproduced statements from the footage suggesting that the men had been led into wrongdoing by “Satan”, while the allegation itself quickly generated controversy inside the university. Farhan and Arman’s subsequent testimony, however, raised the allegation that these statements had been dictated or extracted through fear and intimidation rather than offered voluntarily. Their account therefore placed the circumstances of the recording itself at the centre of the case and raised questions about how a video allegedly obtained under pressure came to be circulated publicly several days after the confrontation. Contemporary reporting also noted questions among students about how the video reached the person who first published it online.

Yusuf Arefin Rumel did not publicly provide a detailed response to the specific allegations when approached by Dhaka Post, saying that he had given his account to the investigation committee and that the committee could disclose it. Dr Muhammad Shahidullah Hall Provost Professor Md Aminul Islam Bhuiyan confirmed that Rumel had provided part of his statement and could be called again if necessary. Crucially, the provost also said that, as of 3 August, the investigation committee had not yet been able to speak with the two visitors and intended to do so. He said the matter remained under investigation and that no complete conclusion could yet be drawn. This meant that by the time Farhan and Arman publicly challenged the “confession” narrative, videos containing their recorded statements had already circulated widely and become central to public discussion of the allegation, even though the university’s investigation had not yet heard directly from them.

The 3 August accounts therefore marked an important development in documenting the Shahidullah Hall incident. The issue was no longer only whether two visitors had been accused of same-sex conduct, but also whether they had been subjected to intimidation, compelled to make particular statements, recorded under pressure and subsequently exposed through the circulation of those recordings. Farhan and Arman’s statements do not by themselves constitute an independent determination of everything that occurred inside Room 311, and Rumel’s full account to the investigation committee was not publicly available at the time. They do, however, directly contest the characterization of the viral footage as a voluntary “confession”. The distinction is significant because the videos had already exposed the two men to widespread public scrutiny on the basis of perceived sexual orientation before their own account of how those recordings were produced had entered the public record. The allegations of coercion, the recording and circulation of sensitive footage, and the fact that the affected men had not yet been interviewed by the university investigation when their identities and alleged conduct were already being publicly discussed raise serious concerns regarding privacy, dignity, due process and forced exposure in the handling of allegations concerning actual or perceived sexual orientation.