Human rights activist Nur Khan Liton has criticised Inspector General of Police (IGP) Ali Hossain Fakir's statement on crossfire, saying it contradicts the Constitution, existing laws, and democratic principles.
He believes the statement reflects an attempt to conceal the police's failure to improve the law and order situation. He has called on the government to take strict action against the IGP over the remarks.
Liton has worked for more than three decades to address extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and other human rights violations in Bangladesh. He is a former executive director and head of investigation at human rights organisation Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK).
In 2023, he received the US Department of State's Global Human Rights Defender Award for his contribution to human rights protection. He was also a member of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, formed in August 2024.
In an interview with The Business Standard's (TBS) Special Correspondent Rashed Nizam, Liton discussed the IGP's statement on crossfire, the role of the police, the law and order situation, and human rights.
IGP Ali Hossain Fakir said that if the government wishes, he will not back down from carrying out crossfires. The statement sparked discussion and criticism throughout Monday, drawing reactions from human rights organisations. Police Headquarters later issued a clarification, saying the IGP did not mean extrajudicial killings by "crossfire". How do you view his statement?
There is no scope to accept the IGP's statement in any way. From a human rights perspective, such remarks could lead to human rights violations. Morally, too, I believe he should no longer remain in the post of IGP.
At a time when the country is moving towards democracy, such statements obstruct that progress and put the government in an embarrassing position.
Over the past 15 to 15 and a half years, enforced disappearances and crossfire killings were among the issues that drew the strongest public outcry. As a consequence, the then prime minister had to flee the country on 5 August 2024.
After 5 August, people hoped the country would build a strong foundation for democracy. Unfortunately, however, the statements and actions of some people heading various forces are raising questions about the government.
The IGP's statement is not merely audacious; it contradicts the Constitution, the laws of the land, and international principles.
Do you think the IGP could have spoken with such emphasis without some tacit support from the government?
Firstly, some individuals leading the forces may have political affiliations. Secondly, instead of taking responsibility for the failure to improve the country's current law and order situation, the IGP is seeking to use a measure that goes against democracy, the Constitution, and international principles as a tool.
When such statements come from senior officials of government forces, subordinate members may misinterpret them. They may think there is room for extralegal activities.
We are already seeing the country's law and order situation gradually deteriorate. There is firing in some places, while bodies are being found floating in others. These incidents do not indicate a normal situation; rather, they reveal weaknesses in law enforcement.
Ordinary people are also becoming suspicious that an organised group may be creating such a situation to disrupt the country's progress towards democracy. The IGP's statement can be seen as a symptom of that very apprehension.
Do you think the IGP made such remarks to cover up the police's failure to improve the law and order situation?
The matter is clear to me. Such statements are being made precisely to hide their failure. Crossfire is being considered a tool for improving the law and order situation.
The previous government also made similar statements. But we later saw crossfire being used to suppress and oppress the opposition.
There is no scope under any circumstances to carry out crossfire killings in violation of the law. As long as the Constitution and existing laws remain in force, such actions have no legitimacy. Even if the government wishes, there is no legal basis for taking such steps.
Statistics published by ASK since 2004 show that police involvement in crossfire or gunfight incidents is higher than that of the erstwhile Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). Could such a statement encourage police personnel to engage in crossfire?
It certainly could. There has been a failure to take the necessary steps within the bounds of the law to improve the law and order situation. To fill that gap and evade responsibility, crossfire is being proposed as a tool for maintaining peace and order.
Such statements may encourage ordinary members of law enforcement agencies to disobey the law and engage in extralegal activities. This is extremely concerning.
Recently, there have been a few instances of the government taking action against responsible individuals. A reserved seat MP resigned over the Radda clinic incident, while Ishraque lost his state ministership. Now that the IGP has made a statement on a sensitive issue like crossfire, what should the government do?
As I said earlier, on moral grounds, he has lost the qualification to remain in the post of IGP. The government should take strict action against him. There is no scope for leniency in this regard.
We want the government to take effective steps to improve the human rights situation and the law and order situation. Proper action must also be taken against those who make such statements or encourage others to make them.
Several of the steps taken by the prime minister so far have been important for democracy. We hope the government will take a firm stance in this case as well.
Following a day of criticism, Police Headquarters issued a clarification stating that the IGP did not mean extrajudicial killings by "crossfire", but was referring to bringing the law and order situation under control. How do you view this clarification?
This is like trying to cover something up in a superficial way. The IGP knows what "crossfire" means. He is neither a child nor insane. He made the statement with a sound mind. There is no scope to interpret it in any other way.
Trying to mislead the public with a false explanation of such a statement also reflects a kind of weakness within the force.
The IGP also questioned the concern expressed by 101 citizens over the raid at the home of an additional DIG. How do you view this?
The recent raid is an example of the chaotic situation created in Bangladesh in the name of moral policing.
During the previous government's tenure, we saw a woman in Farmgate being harassed by police for wearing a teep on her forehead. At various times, police made different statements about how women should move around and what they should wear.
After 5 August, some extremist political groups, particularly certain individuals from religious groups, publicly offered various explanations about women's freedom of movement. All these are examples of moral policing.
Such actions go beyond the limits of the law and create conditions for various forms of violence against women. Where the law does not explicitly define police jurisdiction, neither the police nor ordinary citizens have the right to intervene in this manner.
The IGP previously served as a superintendent of police before being sent into compulsory retirement. How do you assess his leadership?
There is a long gap in his career. After serving as a superintendent of police, he was appointed directly as IGP. Consequently, I believe there is a weakness in his command position.
As the head of a force, he should make cautious and responsible statements. However, he repeatedly shows a lack of judgment in this regard. When the command position of any force becomes weak, such situations can arise.