Sweeping arrests and convictions

In law, even an accused has to be treated as innocent unless proven guilty. But in this case, they were picked up and detained purely on suspicion; and as far as one knows, most of them were not also caught with arms, staves or machettes on their person. In some cases, the parents might have been lucky to track down their ill-fated children before they were being challaned to the court.

When indiscriminate arrests are made, no matter what the ostensible purpose is, questions of law, civil liberty and right to free movement are bound to arise. If the law enforcers detain people to prevent an anticipated public disorder purely on suspicion rather than on any material evidence, the onus doubly lies on the former to prove that the arrestee did actually pose a threat to public order. That is how the police will speak in the language of law, and as an instrument of the government, rather than that of the ruling party.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In fact, in a worse case scenario, a magistrate has so much as sentenced 62 women who were arrested in connection with the Hawa Bhaban siege programme to a three-day prison term along with a fine of Tk 50 each. This, he has done, before the women were produced before the court by the police to have their say as to whether they were guilty or not. Such a summary handing out of conviction virtually based on a list of names furnished by the police -- since they were not physically produced before the magistrate -- is a clear instance of miscarriage of justice. The relevant Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) ordinance itself required that the accused be physically presented before the court. Why was this not done? If it is true that the magistrate had acted under the instructions received from 'higher authorities', as he has reportedly admitted to, then where does the lower judiciary stand?