Rights organisations and human rights experts have condemned Inspector General of Police (IGP) Md Ali Hossain Fakir's remarks that police would resort to crossfire to curb crime if the government allowed it, saying extrajudicial killings violate the Constitution and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) and Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) have called for accountability and a clear government position on the remarks.
Human rights activist Nur Khan Liton and Supreme Court lawyer Advocate Manzill Murshid have also criticised the statement, saying allegations of crime must be addressed through lawful judicial proceedings.
The IGP made the remarks today (26 October) at the inauguration of the Community Islamic Bank System in Dhaka's Chawkbazar area.
"Our responsibility is to apply the law and the Constitution wherever and whenever necessary. If a crossfire is necessary, and the government allows it, we will proceed accordingly," he said.
He also urged people not to take the law into their own hands and called for an environment in which police could perform their duties effectively.
TIB demands IGP's removal over crossfire remarks
TIB has demanded that the police chief withdraw his remarks, issue an unconditional public apology and be removed from office, saying the statement reflects disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law.
TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman said government approval could not legitimise extrajudicial killings and raised serious concerns about the use of lethal force and the accountability of law enforcement agencies.
Citing Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution, which safeguard legal protection and the right to life and personal liberty, he said police must operate within constitutional and legal boundaries.
TIB also referred to past cases of alleged extrajudicial killings and abuses, including the murder of retired army major Sinha Md Rashed Khan, the Narayanganj seven-murder case and the killing of Ekramul Haque, to highlight the consequences of unlawful use of force.
The organisation called on the government to clarify its position on the IGP's remarks and ensure their withdrawal, an unconditional public apology and administrative action, including his removal from office until accountability is ensured.
TIB said the use of force by law enforcement agencies must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Intentional lethal force, it added, should be used only when strictly unavoidable to protect life.
ASK says remarks violate Constitution, human rights principles
ASK has condemned the remarks as unacceptable from someone holding the highest position in the police hierarchy, saying they contradict the rule of law, constitutional rights and fundamental human rights principles.
In a statement issued today, the human rights organisation said neither the state nor law enforcement agencies had the right to kill anyone extrajudicially, even if the person was accused of a crime.
Police are responsible for preventing crime, arresting suspects, conducting impartial investigations and bringing accused persons before the courts, ASK said. Suggesting extrajudicial killings as a law enforcement measure could not be considered responsible policing, it added.
Citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture, ASK said the state was obliged to protect the right to life, prevent torture and ensure justice.
No government directive or authorisation could override these constitutional and international obligations, the organisation said.
ASK also said the remarks were inconsistent with the current government's election manifesto pledge to end extrajudicial killings. It demanded an immediate explanation from the government, a clear declaration that such killings would not be authorised or tolerated, and an institutional review of the IGP's statement.
HRSS questions whether remarks reflect government position
HRSS expressed concern over the remarks, questioning whether the government considered extrajudicial killings permissible or whether the police chief had expressed his personal views.
In its statement, the organisation said maintaining law and order and ensuring public safety were state responsibilities, but these duties must be carried out through lawful procedures, impartial investigations and respect for the judiciary.
Being accused of a crime did not deprive anyone of the right to life or a fair trial, HRSS said, adding that crossfire could not serve as a substitute for judicial proceedings.
The organisation demanded a clear explanation from the government and a commitment to preventing unlawful killings by law enforcement agencies and ensuring accountability.
HRSS Executive Director Ijajul Islam said the legitimacy of the state's use of force to combat crime depended on adherence to the law, not extrajudicial methods.
Offenders must be tried in court to establish the rule of law, he said, adding that extrajudicial killings could not be justified even with state approval.
Rights experts say IGP's remarks undermine accountability
Human rights activist Nur Khan Liton told The Business Standard that the IGP's remarks violated the Constitution and the law, adding that anyone making such statements from the highest position in the police should be held accountable.
He said people had often been taken into custody and killed in incidents later presented as crossfire.
If the IGP genuinely supported such actions, he should not remain in office, Nur Khan said, warning that the remarks could put the government in an embarrassing and dangerous position.
Supreme Court lawyer Advocate Manzill Murshid said many incidents described as crossfire in the past had actually been planned killings.
He estimated that around 10% of such incidents might have involved genuine exchanges of gunfire, while the remaining 90% had been presented as crossfire.
Murshid said anyone accused of a crime must be tried under the law and that there was no justification for extrajudicial killing.
He suggested the IGP might have made the remarks emotionally, possibly in the context of anti-drug operations or other issues, and said he did not believe the current government would authorise such actions.
Opposition to crossfire and human rights violations had been central to the political movement that led to the previous government's fall, he said.
However, Murshid said publicly seeking permission for crossfire was inappropriate for someone in the IGP's position, adding that clarification should be sought before drawing conclusions about the remarks.