The recurring tendency of state institutions and policymakers to overlook past experiences continues to generate profound public anxiety. Recently, remarks made by Inspector General of Police Md. Ali Hossain Fakir during a banking sector event in Dhaka have raised serious concerns among citizens. He reportedly suggested that under specific circumstances and with governmental authorization, law enforcement could resort to crossfire. Such statements are widely viewed within democratic norms as contradictory to the rule of law and fundamental human rights.
The core debate does not revolve around whether a society needs a police force, but rather how that force executes its mandate. The necessity of police in maintaining social order is undisputed; however, the critical issue lies in their operational methods and respect for human rights. Civil society has long argued that law enforcement cannot justify extrajudicial measures or excessive use of force under any pretext. The police must serve as a protective shield for citizens rather than an instrument of terror.
The phrase used regarding the omnipresence of police in a citizen's life has drawn sharp reactions from human rights defenders. They argue that such rhetoric can foster a culture of impunity and encourage the abuse of authority among force members. The traumatic memories of past extrajudicial killings and alleged crossfire incidents continue to haunt society, and citizens strive to break free from that legacy of fear. Any extrajudicial action directly violates both the national constitution and established legal frameworks.
In a democratic state, combating crime cannot come at the expense of human rights. Regardless of the gravity of an offense, every accused individual is entitled to a fair trial within the judicial system. When law enforcement agencies assume the role of arbiters, the foundational principles of the rule of law are severely undermined. At a time when ongoing reforms aim to transform the police into a more public-friendly entity, such remarks appear counterproductive and alarming.
Experts emphasize that individuals holding high public office must exercise extreme caution and responsibility in their public pronouncements. The primary duty of the police is to prevent crime and bring suspects to justice, not to execute punitive measures extrajudicially. Such statements not only question the professionalism of the force but also threaten the fundamental security and rights of ordinary citizens. Consequently, civil society groups have called for clear clarifications from the highest levels of government and an unwavering commitment to human rights.
Ultimately, the relationship between the state and its citizens must be anchored in mutual trust and constitutional adherence. Moving away from cultures of fear and coercion is essential to building an effective, democratic, and law-abiding police institution. Policymakers and law enforcement leaders must recognize that operating strictly within legal boundaries is the only acceptable standard of professional governance.
