TIB demands withdrawal of IGP's 'crossfire' remark and his removal; ASK and rights groups voice alarm

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has demanded the withdrawal of Inspector General of Police (IGP) Md Ali Hossain Fakir's remark that police would carry out 'crossfire' if needed with government approval, a public and unconditional apology, and his removal from duty until accountability is ensured. Human rights organisations Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) and the Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) have also voiced concern and raised questions over the remark.

Speaking at the inauguration of Community Bank's 'Islamic Banking service' at Chawkbazar in the capital on Monday (26 October), IGP Md Ali Hossain Fakir said, 'Police will perform their duties in accordance with the law and the constitution.' In the same speech he said, 'If necessary and if the government approves, police will carry out crossfire.' The remark drew strong reactions from human rights organisations, civil society and crime analysts.

Facing criticism, Police Headquarters said in the evening: 'The IGP used the word crossfire in its literal sense to convey strictness in law enforcement, not to mean punishment or killing outside the judicial process.' Citing the right to self-defence and existing laws, headquarters said, 'In the first 10 months of 2026, 176 attacks on police while on duty killed four members and seriously injured 370.' The IGP's remarks about journalists at the same event were also described as inadvertent, and police renewed their pledge to perform duties while upholding human rights.

TIB said presenting crossfire as an alternative without addressing failures in law and order and institutional weaknesses is shortsighted and dangerous. Its executive director, Dr Iftekharuzzaman, asked whether seeking legitimacy for extrajudicial killing subject to government permission is not an admission of failure to combat crime lawfully. He reminded that the police's job is to identify criminals, collect evidence and bring the accused to trial.

TIB also noted that on 14 September the law minister had said the government would not take the path of crossfire in countering terrorism, and sought an explanation for the inconsistency with the IGP's remark. Protesting the IGP's allegation that police criticise journalists when not paid, the organisation said specific allegations should be investigated rather than met with sweeping comments.

In a statement, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) said hinting at the possibility of extrajudicial killing from the police's highest post is contrary to constitutional rights and human rights, and that the government must state unequivocally that no such killing will be approved. The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) asked whether the remark reflects the government's position or the IGP's personal comment. Both organisations stressed lawful judicial process and institutional accountability.

ASK senior coordinator and human rights activist Abu Ahmed Fayzul Karim said, 'As a citizen, I am stunned and deeply worried by the IGP's remark that police will not hesitate to carry out crossfire if the government approves. Such a statement is in no way expected from the head of a responsible law-enforcement agency.' In his view, no government approval can legitimise an extrajudicial killing. 'We want trial of crimes, not extrajudicial killings in the name of crossfire,' he said.

Professor Rezaul Karim Sohag, chairman of Dhaka University's Department of Criminology, said the discussion on crime control should not be limited to harsh force; those who shelter and abet criminals must also be identified. He said it must be examined whether, after committing a crime, an offender receives shelter from an influential person, a political leader or a member of the law-enforcement agencies, and everyone involved must be brought under the law. He also mentioned police members suspended over alleged drug links in the last two months.

Dr Touhidul Haque, associate professor at Dhaka University's Institute of Social Welfare and Research and a crime analyst, said, 'From a legal and moral point of view, there is no scope to support such a statement, because however grave an offence an accused person may be involved in, they too have the right to self-defence, to justice and to reform.' He said stern action against crime must remain within existing law and the judicial process, adding: 'We do not want to return to the past culture of crossfire or extrajudicial killings.'

Analysts say the debate is not only about the choice of a word. Articles 31 and 32 of the constitution protect the right to the protection of law and the rights to life and personal liberty, and international human rights standards limit the use of lethal weapons to conditions of strict necessity and proportionality. The controversy therefore also concerns the limits of state force in fighting crime and the accountability of the force.

Behind the concern lies a long history of human rights violations. After RAB was formed in 2004, domestic and foreign human rights organisations repeatedly raised questions about deaths in the name of 'crossfire' or 'gunfights'. A 2006 Human Rights Watch report documented 367 people killed by RAB from June 2004 to September 2006, of whom 284 deaths were described as 'crossfire'. The 2018 death of Teknaf councillor Ekramul Haque in an alleged gunfight, the 2020 killing of retired Major Sinha Mohammad Rashed Khan, and the Narayanganj seven murders repeatedly return to discussions of abuse of power by law-enforcement agencies.

Enforced disappearances are not separate from that history. The final report of the commission of inquiry on enforced disappearances, published on 4 January this year, said that of 1,913 complaints received, 1,569 were identified as disappearances after verification, and 287 complaints fell into the 'missing and dead' category. A UN human rights office fact-finding report published in 2025 also documented lethal force and grave human rights violations by security forces in suppressing the July-August 2024 movement.