Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) condemned remarks made by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), who said that police would resort to cross‑fire, if necessary, to maintain law and order with government approval. TIB described the statement as a dangerous message that could legitimize extrajudicial killings.

The group said the comments framed extrajudicial killings as a legitimate tool for crime control, diverting attention from shortcomings in maintaining law and order and from institutional weaknesses. Calling the remarks a blatant contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, the TIB demanded their immediate withdrawal and that the police chief be held accountable, noting that the statements run counter to the government’s publicly declared opposition to extrajudicial killings.

TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman questioned the police chief, asking: “Is the police chief seeking to use the discredited practice of crossfire as a shield for the police’s failure to maintain law and order? Does seeking to legitimize extrajudicial killings by making them conditional on government approval amount to an admission of failure to combat crime through lawful means?”

In a statement, officials emphasized that the police must conduct professional investigations, identify offenders and bring the accused to trial on the basis of admissible evidence. They added that presenting crossfire as an alternative cannot resolve institutional weaknesses; rather, it exemplifies professional bankruptcy.

In the same remarks, the Inspector General of Police said that police would discharge their duties in accordance with the law and the Constitution, yet also indicated that the force would resort to “crossfire” if the government gave its approval. The two statements are contradictory, as no government approval can legitimize an extrajudicial killing.

The rights to legal protection, life and personal liberty enshrined in Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution cannot be overridden by executive action. Irrespective of the gravity of any accusation, police lack the authority to deprive a person of life by circumventing due process.

Recalling earlier incidents involving police forces, Iftekharuzzaman said: “The conviction of police officers in the Sinha murder case, together with the allegations reported in connection with the verdict that cross‑fire was used to extort money, torture people and kill them, serves as a reminder of the horrific nature of this practice.”

The death of Teknaf municipal councillor Ekramul Haque, described as occurring in a purported gunfight, has raised serious questions after his family released an audio recording and alleged that he was murdered.

The recent convictions of former Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) officials in the Narayanganj seven‑murder case constitute another court‑verified instance of criminal abuse of power by law‑enforcement agencies.

Despite thousands of similar incidents and mounting public demand for police and broader state reforms, the police chief has again raised the prospect of cross‑fire. He now faces the question of what lessons the police have learned from past crimes.

Iftekharuzzaman said the police chief’s comments could be interpreted as an implicit licence for unlawful use of force at the field level. He added, “Such reckless and ill‑considered remarks by the police chief could be perceived as an implicit license for unlawful use of force at the field level. When the person responsible for ensuring that the force operates within the law presents crossfire as an alternative, questions about his sense of responsibility and suitability for leadership inevitably arise.”

The question was posed: “How can the public trust that, under his leadership, citizens’ lives and legal protections will be safeguarded?”

On 14 September, the Law Minister said the government would not resort to crossfire to combat terrorism and that existing legislation was sufficient to address the threat. The police chief, however, has raised the prospect of using crossfire, stating it would require government approval – prompting the question of why this option is being considered.

The government is being urged to clarify the inconsistency and to detail how accountability will be ensured in the implementation of its stated position.

The TIB said that any police use of force must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Under international standards, intentional lethal use of firearms is permissible only when it is strictly unavoidable to protect life. The organization added that this narrowly defined exception must not be portrayed as authorisation for extrajudicial killings.

The TIB responded to claims that journalists criticize the police because they have not received money, stating that any specific allegations of criminal conduct against a journalist must be dealt with through lawful action based on evidence.

The organization said that sweeping allegations erode the function of a free press in providing oversight and accountability and could deter independent journalism. It added that the need for a supportive working environment and adequate police capacity does not excuse evading legitimate criticism.

The Trade and Investment Board (TIB) urged the government to obtain a formal explanation for the Inspector General of Police’s remarks, to secure their withdrawal together with an unconditional public apology, and to hold the police chief administratively accountable. The TIB also called for the police chief’s removal from office until accountability is ensured.

Why it matters

The IGP's crossfire remarks risk legitimizing extrajudicial killings and undermine the rule of law in Bangladesh.