—Syed Ishtiaque Reza—

We are living in a society that is generally indifferent to human rights. This is a society that tolerates injustice and even glorifies violence. In this environment, power, domination and aggression are often valued more than compassion or moral responsibility.

Despite this harsh nature, this society can still become “choked by emotion”.  Even people who are normally detached or cruel may feel sympathy, guilt or sadness. In moments of emotional truth, compassion can rise above hatred, reminding people that being human is more important than winning conflicts or exercising power.

Such a scenario is seen in the case of Bangladesh Chhatra League leader Jewel Hasan Saddam. Saddam bid a tearful final farewell to his wife and nine-month-old baby while in custody at Jashore Central Jail, as he was denied parole to attend the funeral. The baby was born when he was in jail.

The incident sparked widespread criticism even among the people who fought on the street against the Hasina regime. Interim government head Dr Muhammad Yunus and his law adviser Asif Nazrul remained tight-lipped, although the home ministry issued a clarification to justify the government action.

Rights organisation the Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) has said that denying parole to Saddam to attend the funeral of his wife and baby was a clear violation of both the constitution and international human rights law. Calling for clear explanations and accountability, ASK added that there is scope for the High Court to take suo motu action in the matter.

The matter is essentially a political-legal critique, not just about one person but about how the justice system functions in Bangladesh.

The denial of parole to Bagerhat Saddam is not merely an isolated administrative decision; it is a troubling reflection of a deeper crisis within our justice system.

At a time when the rule of law is supposed to serve as the foundation of democratic governance, such actions instead expose how selectively and arbitrarily that law has been applied.

Parole exists not as an act of mercy but as a legal mechanism grounded in statute and principle. It is designed to reward rehabilitation, ensure humane treatment of prisoners, and uphold fairness within the penal system.

When an individual who appears to meet established legal criteria is denied parole without transparent reasoning, it raises an unavoidable question: is the rule of law being ensured, or is it being manipulated? The home ministry talked about the procedure. But it is not the system but the human consideration which should get priority in the justice system.

The strength of any justice system lies in its consistency. Laws lose their legitimacy when they are enforced differently depending on identity, political context or convenience.

The denial of parole in this case has fuelled public concern because similar privileges have reportedly been extended to others under comparable or even less justifiable circumstances. Such inconsistency sends a dangerous message: that justice is not blind but selective.

Even more alarming is the implication of executive overreach. Parole decisions should be guided by legal frameworks and professional assessments, by love for humanity, not political calculations or external pressure.

When bureaucratic administrative discretion replaces legal obligation, the system drifts from rule of law towards rule by will. History shows that once this boundary is crossed, ordinary citizens are the ultimate victims.

This incident also highlights a broader human rights concern. A legal system that disregards due process and humanitarian considerations erodes its moral authority. Prisoners do not lose their constitutional protections at the prison gate. Denying lawful relief without justification undermines both justice and humanity.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Saddam’s parole is not about defending an individual; it is about defending a principle. If the law can be bent or ignored in one case, it can be done in any case. A state that claims to be governed by law must prove it through action, transparency and equal application of justice.

Until parole decisions are made strictly according to law rather than discretion or influence, claims of upholding the rule of law will ring hollow. What this denial has exposed is not the guilt or innocence of one man, but the fragile state of justice itself.

The criminal justice system in Bangladesh is widely criticised for being politically motivated and coercive in nature, undermining its role as a neutral guarantor of justice and rule of law. Rather than functioning independently, key institutions such as the police, prosecution services, and, at times, even the judiciary are often perceived as instruments used to advance partisan political interests.

A central feature of this coercive system is the selective application of laws. Opposition politicians, activists, journalists and dissenting voices are frequently targeted through arrests, prolonged investigations and the filing of multiple criminal cases, often under broadly defined or vaguely worded laws.

Moreover, the coercive nature of the system is exacerbated by structural weaknesses, including lack of institutional independence, limited oversight mechanisms and slow judicial processes.

Prolonged pretrial detention becomes a form of punishment in itself, regardless of eventual guilt or innocence. This disproportionately affects marginalised groups and political opponents who lack access to power or resources.

—————————————————

The writer is a journalist and communist