From unlawful arbitration to murder: State must set example of justice

A 15-year-old girl from Narsingdi displayed remarkable bravery by pursuing justice for her rape. Tragically, her life was abruptly ended while she sought that justice. Allegations state that she was abducted in public while attempting to reach safety with her father, and her lifeless body was discovered the following day. This incident transcends mere murder; it highlights a profound crisis within our law enforcement, human rights safeguards, and social justice systems. When an individual striving for justice loses their life, it raises a critical question – does the legal framework of the state truly provide a secure environment for its citizens?

At the core of this incident lies another disturbing reality – the practice of 'settling' grave offenses such as rape through unlawful arbitration. Rape is not a private matter that can be resolved through compromise in a local forum. It constitutes a direct assault on an individual's body, dignity, mental well-being, and constitutional rights.

It is a crime that cannot be resolved under state law; it must be adjudicated in a court of law. Nevertheless, we observe that even serious accusations are occasionally brought to the 'resolution' table by powerful individuals or local political factions. This practice is not only unlawful but also erodes the fundamental principles of justice.

In the Narsingdi incident, the sequence began with allegations of rape, followed by attempts to seek justice, then threats, culminating in kidnapping and murder. Each phase exemplifies a culture of impunity. When offenders perceive that they can evade consequences through influence, fear, or political connections, their audacity grows. This culture of impunity does not emerge suddenly; it is the product of prolonged neglect, compromise, and silence. Social and institutional vulnerabilities contribute to the prevalence of illegal arbitration. Numerous families hesitate to approach the police, fearing that filing a report will lead to delays, harassment, or pressure from powerful individuals. The fear of social disgrace and stigma also plays a significant role. The family of a rape victim often believes that pursuing a case will further diminish their standing in society. Criminal organizations exploit this mindset, knowing they can stifle complaints through intimidation or influence. However, the pressing question remains: why do individuals seek illegal arbitration instead of approaching the police?

The answer lies in the pervasive lack of trust in our law enforcement system. If individuals were confident that their cases would be addressed promptly, that victims would receive protection, and that investigations would be conducted impartially, they would not resort to illegal arbitration. Thus, illegal settlements represent not only a social failure but also a manifestation of institutional frailty. Nevertheless, no institutional shortcomings can justify the resolution of a crime such as rape through arbitration. While arbitration may be appropriate for minor disputes, rape, kidnapping, and murder are offenses that warrant state punishment.

Compromising in these cases merely affords the perpetrator time to destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses, and most importantly, it subjects the victim to a second humiliation.

The act of abducting a daughter from her father poses a direct challenge to the state. It illustrates the extent to which criminals have become emboldened. Such boldness arises only when the integrity of law enforcement is called into question. The state's duty extends beyond merely investigating incidents; it must foster an environment where criminal acts are unthinkable. The police play a crucial role in this regard. When serious crime allegations emerge, the police ought to act proactively. The law empowers them to do so. Remaining passive while awaiting a charge sheet reflects a deficiency in initiative. Concurrently, it is essential to ascertain whether any surveillance or preventive actions were implemented following the initial complaint. Such occurrences typically propagate through word of mouth in smaller communities; total ignorance signifies administrative frailty.

The issue of political influence is also unavoidable in this context. At the local level, party affiliation frequently serves as a source of social authority. If a public official or a person of influence attempts to 'settle' serious offenses outside the legal framework, it undermines the rule of law. Political parties must convey a definitive message - there can be no compromise, no mediation in cases of rape and murder. Party affiliation must never serve as a cover for criminal activities.

A transformation in societal attitudes is crucial. Why are families of victims still being advised to vacate the area? Why is the victim's character scrutinized rather than that of the offender? If this cultural mindset remains unchanged, even legal reforms will prove insufficient. The act of suppressing crime under the guise of protecting honor ultimately undermines the honor of society. Reforms in the law enforcement framework are imperative.

Gender-sensitive units, support desks for women and children, expedited investigation timelines, and programs for the protection of witnesses and victims must be effectively established within police departments. There must be an increase in the training of police personnel regarding human rights and the protection of women and children. The efficiency of specialized tribunals needs to be enhanced to shorten the duration of legal proceedings. Imposing exemplary punishment is of utmost importance in this context.

This is not an act of vengeance; rather, it serves as a societal message. When the public observes that the offender has faced consequences, it restores faith in the legal system. It instills fear in the minds of potential offenders. Conversely, if justice is postponed or obstructed due to external influences, it fosters a culture of impunity.

The significance of the media and civil society cannot be overstated. Incidents involving illegal arbitration need to be exposed, and public sentiment must be cultivated. Concurrently, the identity and dignity of the victim should be safeguarded. It is essential to raise awareness to combat rumors and character defamation on social media. We must not subject the victim to a second round of punishment. Most crucially—we must unite in declaring ‘no’ to the recurrence of such events. No to illegal settlements. No to political interference. No to impunity. No to the culture of victim-blaming. The state must exemplify justice—swift, impartial, and visible justice. The administration should take a proactive stance. Political parties need to foster a culture of accountability, and society must embody compassion. The strength of a nation is reflected in its ability to protect its most vulnerable citizens.

The tragic death of that girl from Narsingdi conveys a profound message—if the journey to justice is fraught with danger, democracy and the rule of law become mere formalities. Now is the moment to demonstrate that the state genuinely supports its citizens. Thus, there can be no leniency regarding crimes such as rape and murder, no illegal arbitration; only the full force of the law should be enforced. The state must serve as a beacon of justice, ensuring that in the future, no one loses their life without receiving justice for rape. I emphatically reject the recurrence of such atrocious acts—no, no, no. The time for change is now, the time for justice is now.

Advocate Fauzia Karim Firoz
Human rights leader and Supreme Court lawyer