Silencing accused for whose benefit?

Oh, no! This was how most of us must have reacted when Golam Faizullah Fahim, the machete attacker of Madaripur college teacher, was killed in "crossfire" with police in the district Saturday.

Resorting to a strike-and-run strategy, this latest band of criminals, reportedly responsible for 13 murders since March, remained in the shadows till Faizullah got nabbed by the locals. Luckily for the law-enforcers, he could not disappear like his two accomplices after hacking mathematics teacher Ripon Chakraborty.

Faizullah should have been a prized capture for the anti-militancy investigators, who were expected to protect him like a piece of glass. Found to be helpless in countering targeted attacks over months, the law-enforcers were expected to get some vital clues and information from Faizullah. All it needed was some extensive, intelligent interrogation for long. He should have been kept alive at any cost so that he could be used as a priceless witness in trial of the masterminds after they are nabbed.               

But the law enforcers acted just the opposite. Why on earth they let a track to masterminds of targeted killings go dead in so much of a hurry? Whose purpose their action served actually? Killings in crossfire or gunbattle are not at all acceptable. And this one in particular is far too shocking and shrouded in loads of question.

A typical version of law enforcers stated how they came under fire from accomplices of Faizullah and how the exchange of fire took the life of an HSC examinee from Dhaka on the first day of his 10-day police remand. But the government must not buy this half-baked story as this action has possibly ruined a golden opportunity to know who are out to kill innocent people.    

Since the middle of March, a different type of terror has been sending chill down the spine of a secular Bangladesh. Thirteen people have been hacked to death in the last three months, with the Madaripur teacher being the only survivor with serious injuries. All the incidents were identical: attackers turned up in a group of three, machetes were used in attack and victims were low-key individuals from minority communities or free-thinkers. 

And what follows the attacks is also quite identical. Police would invariably fail to arrest culprits. If, hours into the attack, US-based SITE Intelligence writes: Islamic State claims responsibility, our home minister responds: IS does not exist in Bangladesh.

The law enforcers would soon make a few arrests of so-called Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) operatives to back up the government claim that local terror groups are responsible for the attacks. And then all are forgotten till the next strike.  

But when Faizullah was captured Wednesday, an opportunity was created to make a breakthrough in the investigation. Faizullah might have been a lower-tier operative, but by grilling him the investigators could have eventually unearthed the militant web and its main players. His death struck off that chance.

A culprit caught red-handed is undoubtedly a gift for any investigator. With the prized arrestee in hand, why did the police rush him out at 2:00 in the morning in a remote area of Madaripur for what they said an “operation”? Faizullah was based in Dhaka and is understood to have travelled to Madaripur for executing the plan of killing a Hindu teacher. How credible is the police claim that his accomplices would wait for cops to pounce on at an ungodly hour and at an unlikely location. It certainly beats the most incredulous of cinema scripts.   

The safety of an accused on remand is the sole responsibility of the relevant forces. In this case, the police failed to ensure that. Police had earlier taken the accused to court with remand prayers by dressing him up with bullet-proof vest and helmet. But where have those life-saving gears gone when they took him out for the “operation”? Funnily though, they anticipate an attack on way to the court but don't expect it during any of their so-called wee-hour operation.

If law enforcers are to go by law, they are not even allowed to take a person on remand out for any such operation. A 2003 HC verdict clearly states: "The Investigation Officer shall interrogate the accused, if necessary for the purpose of investigation in a room specially made for the purpose with glass wall and grill in one side, within the view but not within hearing of a close relation or lawyer of the accused." 

However, Faizullah reportedly started to give revealing information at his brief custodial stint. With his “admission”, the name of the banned militant outfit Hizb-ut Tahrir came up for the first time. What else had Faizullah said to the police? Did he say something that made some law enforcers or certain influential persons uncomfortable? Did some vested quarters in the power circle feel that they are at the risk of being exposed? Why law enforcers had to rush with their “operation”? 

There are many questions in the air. And the government, which is regarded widely by the world for its anti-militancy role, must come forward to put those uneasy questions to rest.