Muqtadir initially alleged that people linked to the BNP had demanded money and suggested that the attack on his studio was connected to the alleged extortion attempt. The Home Minister, however, later described the allegation against the BNP as sweeping, while police said their preliminary investigation pointed to a dispute over land involving the property where the studio was located.
Against this backdrop, questions have emerged over the basis of Muqtadir's allegations, whether he possesses documents or other evidence to support them, and whether the attack was connected to any political group or primarily stemmed from a separate dispute.
Muqtadir's BrownFish Studio, located at a New Gini Properties housing project near Dhaka's ECB Chattar, was attacked and vandalised on September 26. The studio and other parts of the property were damaged, and police subsequently arrested several people in connection with the incident.
Police have said the attack may have originated from a long-running dispute over the land involving New Gini Properties and other landowners. According to the Cantonment Police, Muqtadir had rented a floor of a building owned by New Gini Properties and established his studio there.
The development has created two competing narratives about the motive behind the attack.
On one side, Muqtadir has linked the incident to an alleged extortion demand and publicly raised questions about the involvement of BNP-linked individuals. On the other, police have said their investigation indicates that the studio may have been caught up in a broader dispute over the property and access to the land.
This makes Muqtadir's own account an important part of the investigation.
One issue investigators may need to clarify is exactly what information led him to allege that BNP activists were involved in extortion.
Reports following the attack said Muqtadir had initially spoken about an extortion-related dispute but later clarified that no one had personally demanded money from him. He suggested that the alleged demand may have been directed at the owner of the property.
The distinction is significant because an allegation that money was demanded directly from the content creator would carry a different evidentiary basis from an allegation that a property owner was approached for money.
Investigators could therefore seek to establish who allegedly made the demand, who received or communicated the information, when the demand was made and whether there are call records, messages, documents, CCTV footage or witnesses that could corroborate the claim.
The second major question concerns the actual motive behind the attack.
Police have already said that the incident involved more than Muqtadir's studio. The New Gini Properties office and other structures in the housing project were also targeted. The police investigation has therefore focused on the wider dispute surrounding the property rather than treating the studio as an isolated target.
That raises further questions about Muqtadir's position in the dispute.
Investigators may need to determine whether he was aware of the ownership dispute before establishing his studio there, whether he had any direct involvement in the disagreement and whether any party attempted to use his presence or public profile for its own interests.
The process by which a case was filed has also become part of the controversy.
Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed questioned whether Muqtadir had filed a case immediately after the incident. Muqtadir later responded that he had gone to Cantonment Police Station that night and remained there until around 4am in an effort to file a case.
The discrepancy can be resolved through police records, the time of the complaint, the case documents and statements from those present at the police station.
Another issue is the impact of Muqtadir's social media statements.
As a prominent content creator with a large online following, his allegations can reach a wide audience within a short period. His statements concerning a major political party and the government's handling of the incident have therefore generated broader political discussion.
That does not, however, mean that his allegations should automatically be treated as either established facts or false claims. Their credibility depends on evidence that can be independently verified.
At the same time, Muqtadir is a victim of the attack in the sense that his studio was vandalised and equipment and other belongings were reportedly damaged or taken. Police and investigators therefore have a responsibility to establish what happened to him and his property and to ensure that those responsible are held accountable according to law.
His status as a victim, however, does not prevent investigators from questioning him about information relevant to the case. On the contrary, questioning a complainant or key witness about the source and basis of allegations can be a normal part of an investigation.
The authorities may also seek to establish whether any third party influenced his statements or attempted to use the incident for political or other purposes. Such questions would need to be examined through evidence rather than assumptions.
Meanwhile, reports have also raised questions about Muqtadir's financial affairs. He has said that his income is legitimate. Any examination of financial records, if conducted as part of a lawful investigation, would need to determine whether there are transactions relevant to the allegations or the broader case.
The controversy has also drawn attention to allegations involving businesses linked to Muqtadir's father-in-law. Those claims remain separate from the studio attack and should likewise be assessed on the basis of documentary evidence and statements from the parties concerned.
Ultimately, the BrownFish Studio incident now involves several distinct questions: what triggered the attack, whether the alleged extortion demand actually occurred, who made or communicated such a demand, whether political actors were involved, what role the land dispute played, and whether Muqtadir's public statements were based on verifiable information.
The investigation into the attack has already produced arrests and a preliminary police account pointing towards a property dispute.
The next step should therefore be to test all competing accounts against the available evidence.
If Muqtadir has documents, communications, recordings or other information supporting his extortion allegations, those materials could help investigators establish whether the claims have a factual basis. At the same time, evidence from the property dispute, CCTV footage, witness accounts and the records of the police investigation will be necessary to determine the actual motive behind the attack.
Questioning Muqtadir, if conducted lawfully and as part of the investigation, could therefore help clarify rather than prejudge the controversy. The key issue is not simply whose version of events is more persuasive, but whether the available evidence can establish what actually happened.
