Belittles the rule of law and maligns the justice system
Incidents of crossfire, regrettably, seems to be going on continually. So far this month, 35 people have been killed in so called-called crossfires. The accounts of the incidents have become rather predictable and hackneyed, and they hardly fit the definition of crossfire. Instead, it makes the law enforcers and the police appear to be the judge, jury and executioner, all in one, by taking, what a lawmaker termed, “instant action.” It is surprising to hear the police briefings after the so-called crossfires, describing the antecedents of those killed, as if to justify the killings. Either they are drug dealers or persons with several criminal cases against him, or a suspected killer. As if an accused drug dealer automatically forfeits the right to his life.
There is no doubt that these operations are a continuation of the government’s anti-drug drive to rid the country of drugs? In fact, a police super’s comment that the anti-drug operations would continue in the border areas of his district where drug smuggling is going on, confirms that. We would want the country to be free of drugs. But his statement to the effect that no drug dealer would be spared, betrays the ominous intention. We support the government’s zero-tolerance against drugs, but take issue with the modus of ridding the country of drugs employed by the government. In fact, as per records 466 people were killed in 2018 after the government launched an anti-narcotics drive on May 4 that year. Last year, the figure was 391. In January of this year seven people—alleged drug dealers—were killed in one incident alone in Cox’s Bazaar. This particular aspect of the current anti-drug strategy, we believe, is flawed. And it may be counterproductive in the long run.
No society that values justice and rule of law can condone extrajudicial killings, which the so called crossfire deaths are. It is also a gross violation of, and disregard for, the legal system. A suspect or an accused must be allowed to have his day in the court of law, and not the court of man through “instant action.”
