The indefensible desperation
Even law enforcers cannot take the law in their own hands. Photo: Iqbal Ahmed/ Driknews
The pathetic recurrent reality of extra-judicial killing has once again attracted attention and, thus, The Daily Star editorial concern on such aberration comes as no surprise. The question that should engage thinking minds is, shall such deviation continue to be a part of our law enforcement culture? Alternately, one could ask as to how we have arrived at a situation wherein it is becoming extremely difficult to de-link a lawful outfit from an unlawful practice.
Though unfortunate, the sad reality as of now is that there are many who do not find anything wrong in physically doing away with a hardened criminal. Such individuals, in an apparently desperate state of mind, hold the view that our criminal justice system has been disproportionately sympathetic to the accused and regrettably unconcerned about the plight of the victims of criminal depredations; and, therefore, in such a scenario dangerous criminals and tormentors that cannot be taken care of within the ambit of law could be dealt with beyond the law.
One needs to know why sworn individuals of law enforcement have deviated from the correct legal course because while law expects them to unravel the mysteries of a sordid crime, it does not approve of their taking the law in their own hands in order to prevent or investigate a crime. One could venture to know if lawless officials are in great demand when lawlessness and disorder assume a serious dimension. Do political superiors look favourably at illusory but short-term spectacular results?
If one has to believe that only the worst of criminals tainted by the commission of multiple heinous crimes are dying in the extra-judicial killings, one can reasonably demand to know why such elements were not booked and tried at an earlier stage? This is only normal because if criminal cases were lodged, then investigation with a view to prosecuting was the logical course of action. It, therefore, follows that statutory investigation was not pursued in serious earnest.
The premonition is that proper investigation was blocked and stalled by vested groups that wielded considerable political influence and power. In plain words, criminal elements were misused for so-called political gains. In the process, helpless people had to watch silently when their near ones were killed or properties forcibly taken away, and often compelled to pay toll without protest. The utter lawlessness created a debilitating despondency amongst the general population that lost faith in the due process of law. No wonder in Bangladesh today we have silent and vocal admirers of lawless actions.
It has been reported that prosecution cases often failed as sufficiently credible evidence could not be gathered, that state witnesses who were terrorised did not reach the Court, and that investigation at times were perfunctory. All these are illustrative of an unhealthy scenario in the law and order sector. The considered view is that this has not happened overnight and that the accumulated defaults of many have brought us to this sorry state of affairs.
When unhealthy influence is exercised or exerted in the domain of regulatory organs of the state, the end result is invariably tragic, and putting the rails back on track may prove to be a daunting task. However, since we cannot reconcile with unacceptable actions, we have to rise above factional interests and re-establish the administrative ethos; we have to effectively demonstrate that the state itself is the complainant against the criminal predator and that unbiased effective investigation is its sacred responsibility.
Investigative skills have to be regularly brushed and a scientific temperament has to be inculcated. Evidence has to be largely physical, material and forensically credible, and the investigator has to proceed from the evidence to accused and not otherwise. The disproportionate reliance on judicial confession has to stop. A matter of paramount importance in this regard is a total stoppage of interference in the process of investigation. The investigator's control should be unfettered till he submits the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The autonomy and neutrality of investigation can be ensured through the mechanism of an independent body that may at best remain accountable to judicial scrutiny. The important issue is to insulate the investigation from the undesirable interference of extra-departmental executives. The police outfit that is responsible for investigation has to be functionally autonomous in the interests of legally correct performance.
When investigative skills entailing unbiased efforts emerge consequent upon a strong political direction, there should not be any need to resort to extra-legal measures. In such an atmosphere, information and intelligence would come voluntarily to the benefit of the victims of crime. We must, therefore, strive to create an environment where the blight of extra-judicial killings would be blissfully absent.
Comments