When former officials of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), now the Special Response Battalion (SRB), the armed forces and the police are facing trial over enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, Inspector General of Police (IGP) Md Ali Hossain Fakir’s remarks on “crossfire” have raised fresh concerns about the police force’s commitment to the rule of law.
Speaking at an event in Dhaka yesterday (26 October), the police chief said the police were labelled “fascist” when they used force and “weak” when they remained inactive. He then added, “Wherever crossfire is necessary, if the government allows it, we will do that.”
The remarks triggered widespread criticism from human rights organisations, activists and legal experts, who said government approval could never make an extrajudicial killing lawful.
The Police Headquarters, however, issued a clarification that evening, saying the IGP had not used “crossfire” to mean extrajudicial killing or punishment outside the judicial process. A subsequent statement revised the clarification, saying he had used the term metaphorically to describe firm action against drug traders, terrorists, extortionists and other criminals.
However, Prime Minister’s Information and Broadcasting Adviser Dr Zahed Ur Rahman said today that the government did not support extrajudicial killings in any form. He added that the prime minister would decide on the IGP’s remarks after returning to the country.
The prime minister is currently on a four-day visit to Japan.
The clarification and the government’s response are welcome. But they do not erase the concerns raised by the IGP’s original statement.
Government approval cannot legitimise a killing
The distinction is straightforward. The government can set policing priorities and authorise lawful operations, but it cannot make an otherwise unlawful killing legal simply by giving permission.
Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution protect citizens’ rights to legal protection and life and personal liberty. These protections do not disappear because someone is suspected of a crime. Suspects must be investigated, prosecuted and tried through the judicial process.
This was the central concern raised by rights organisations. Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) called the IGP’s remarks dangerous and demanded that he withdraw them, issue an unconditional public apology and face administrative action, including removal from office.
Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) said neither the state nor law enforcement agencies had the right to kill anyone extrajudicially, even if that person was accused of a crime. It demanded a clear government position against such killings.
The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) also questioned whether the remarks represented the government’s position or the IGP’s personal views. Human rights activist Nur Khan Liton criticised the statement, while Supreme Court lawyer Manzill Murshid said publicly suggesting that crossfire could be used with government permission was inappropriate.
Their concerns are particularly significant given Bangladesh’s history of enforced disappearances, custodial deaths and alleged extrajudicial killings.
Three troubling implications
The IGP’s original remarks raise three questions about policing and accountability.
First, they risk reviving the impression that past crossfire incidents could be justified by government approval. For years, law enforcement agencies have faced allegations of extrajudicial killings, often described as deaths during gunfights. The IGP’s wording appeared to suggest that the government’s permission could make such action acceptable. It would be wrong, however, to treat his remarks as proof that every past crossfire incident was an authorised killing.
Second, the statement raises questions about the police chief’s understanding of the relationship between government authority and the law. Police officers must follow lawful orders, not treat political or administrative instructions as superior to the Constitution. The defence that an officer was merely following orders cannot, by itself, excuse an unlawful act. This is especially relevant when former law enforcement officials are facing legal proceedings over alleged abuses.
Third, the remarks raise doubts about how far the police have moved beyond the practices of the past. After the July uprising, reforming law enforcement institutions and restoring public trust became major challenges. The IGP himself had been forced into retirement in 2022 before returning to service after the uprising. His remarks have therefore prompted questions about whether the force is moving towards a different model of policing or retaining the old mindset.
Stronger policing does not mean more lethal force
The police chief’s argument that officers face criticism whether they act or remain inactive points to a genuine challenge: police need the authority and resources to tackle crime effectively. But effectiveness cannot be measured by the number of arrests or the use of force alone.
A stronger police force requires better investigations, professional evidence collection, accountability for misconduct and the impartial enforcement of the law. Suspects must be brought before courts, and officers who commit crimes must also face justice.
Calling the police “fascist” was not simply a response to their use of batons. Public anger was rooted in allegations of enforced disappearances, crossfire killings and secret detention facilities such as Aynaghar.
The government’s rejection of extrajudicial killings is an important starting point. But it must be followed by a clear, unequivocal commitment that no such killing will be authorised or tolerated, along with accountability for unlawful conduct.
An IGP takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law, not merely to carry out the government’s wishes. The question now is whether the police leadership will demonstrate that it understands the difference.
About The Author
