Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has expressed strong condemnation over comments made by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Md Ali Hossain Fakir, that police would resort to “crossfire” if necessary to maintain law and order, subject to government approval.
The anti-corruption watchdog observed that such comments send a dangerous message by establishing extrajudicial killings as an acceptable tool for curbing crime, rather than addressing institutional weaknesses and failures in maintaining law and order, read a press release issued Monday.
Describing the position as a manifestation of extreme disregard for the Constitution and rule of law, TIB called for an immediate withdrawal of the comments and demanded accountability of the IGP for announcing a stance contrary to the government’s declared position against extrajudicial killings.
Contradiction of law and Constitution
Dr Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of TIB, questioned whether the police chief was seeking to use despised crossfires as a shield to hide their own failures in maintaining law and order.
He asked whether attempting to legitimise extrajudicial killings under the condition of government approval was an admission of failure to curb crime through lawful mechanisms.
The executive director pointed out that the professional duty of the police is to conduct impartial investigations, identify offenders, and bring the accused before the court based on credible evidence.
Presenting crossfire as an alternative does not resolve institutional shortcomings, but rather serves as an example of professional bankruptcy.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman noted that the inspector general of police claimed to uphold duties in accordance with the law and the Constitution while simultaneously talking about carrying out crossfires with government approval – two positions that are fundamentally contradictory.
He emphasised that no government approval can legalise extrajudicial murder, pointing out that the right to the protection of law and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution cannot be revoked through executive decisions.
Regardless of the gravity of allegations, police possess no legal authority to bypass judicial process and kill anyone.
Grim reminder of past crimes
Recalling past experiences, the executive director noted that the conviction of police personnel in the Sinha murder case, alongside reports that emerged from the verdict detailing extortion, torture, and killings under the threat of crossfire, served as a horrifying reminder of this practice.
Widespread questions were also raised when Ekramul Haque, councillor of Teknaf, was killed in a so-called gunfight, supported by murder allegations and an audio recording released by his family.
Moreover, the conviction of former RAB officials in the Narayanganj seven-murder case remains a judicially established example of the criminal abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman stressed that against the backdrop of thousands of such experiences and public expectations for state reform and professional cleansing within the police force, the police chief is once again bringing forward the prospect of crossfire.
He added that the police must answer what lessons they have learned from their past crimes.
‘Tacit licence for unlawful force’
Dr Iftekharuzzaman warned that such reckless and imprudent words from the police chief could be viewed as a tacit licence for the illegal use of force at the field level.
When the official responsible for directing the force within legal boundaries presents crossfire as an alternative, questions inevitably arise regarding his sense of responsibility and competence to lead.
Under such leadership, he questioned how the public could place their trust in the police to guarantee the security of citizens’ lives and legal protection.
He highlighted that on 14 September, the law minister had announced that the government would not pursue crossfire to tackle terrorism and that existing laws were sufficient to combat it.
The government must clarify why the police chief is raising the possibility of crossfire subject to government permission, explain this inconsistency, and specify how his accountability will be ensured in implementing its declared policy.
Scrutiny of free media, demand for comment withdrawal
TIB emphasised that any use of force by police must strictly comply with the law and be necessary and proportionate.
Under international standards, intentional lethal use of firearms is permissible only in strictly unavoidable circumstances solely to save lives, and this narrow exception cannot be exploited to justify extrajudicial killings.
Addressing accusations that journalists criticise the police only when they do not receive money, the organisation maintained that lawful measures based on credible evidence must be pursued if specific criminal allegations exist against any journalist.
Blanket allegations undermine the role of a free press in maintaining oversight and establishing accountability, thereby creating a risk of discouraging independent journalism.
TIB maintained that the need to ensure working environments and operational capabilities for police cannot serve as an excuse to avoid legitimate public criticism.
Calling on the government to seek a formal explanation of the comments, TIB urged the authorities to ensure an unconditional public apology, the formal withdrawal of the comments, and the administrative accountability of the inspector general of police.
The watchdog also urged the government to remove him from his post until such accountability is ensured.
