An investigative report by the BBC has reignited international attention over the mass killing carried out by the Awami League government in July last year as it clung to power after a decade and a half of authoritarian rule. Titled “The Battle for Bangladesh: Fall of Sheikh Hasina,” the report claims that then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself ordered security forces to use lethal weapons to suppress the protests. The BBC also broadcast a phone call in which that order was reportedly given.
According to a UN investigation report, at least 1,400 people were killed in the violence perpetrated by security forces and Awami League cadres during the suppression of the July–August uprising. Legal experts state that because the orders for these killings reportedly came directly from the then prime minister, the responsibility for abuse of state power rests with Sheikh Hasina. In this context, a trial process against her has already begun at an international criminal tribunal.
Legal experts have said that police are not permitted to use lethal weapons except in self-defense. And if a situation escalates to the point where use of deadly weapons or live ammunition becomes necessary, such an action must be approved by an executive magistrate, or in the absence of one, by a senior police officer, and if unavailable, by the officer-in-charge (OC) of the concerned police station. No other state authority has the legal power to order the use of firearms. Therefore, whoever gives such an order is considered a criminal in the eyes of the law.
When can police open fire?
Police have the legal authority to disperse unlawful assemblies if there is harm to life or property, or a threat of such harm. This authority is derived from the Penal Code of 1860, the Police Act of 1861, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, and the Police Regulation of Bengal (PRB) of 1943.
Supreme Court lawyer and human rights activist Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua told Banglanews that, under Section 153 of the PRB, police may open fire in three situations. First, for self-defence or protection of property (as per Sections 96 to 100 of the Penal Code). These sections give police the same right as any citizen to use lethal force if needed for self-defence. Second, in the course of making an arrest (under Section 46 of the CrPC). Third, to disperse an unlawful assembly (according to Sections 127 and 128 of the CrPC).
Before taking the extreme step of using live ammunition to disperse an unlawful assembly, the police are required to follow several procedural steps. In this regard, a High Court bench issued observations on August 4 last year in response to a writ petition seeking a halt to police firing during the quota reform movement. In its observations regarding the use of firearms to disperse unlawful gatherings, the court stated that if someone violates the law, the police or other law enforcement agencies may use rubber bullets or tear gas. But if there is no breach of law or no outbreak of rioting, live ammunition must not be used.
Use of firearms to disperse unlawful assemblies
In general, the Constitution grants every citizen the right to assemble and hold meetings. Article 37 of the Constitution says: “Every citizen shall have the right to assemble and participate in public meetings and processions peacefully and unarmed, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order or public health.”
However, such assemblies may at times turn into unlawful gatherings. According to Section 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an assembly of five or more persons is deemed unlawful if: first, it involves criminal force or threats to prevent a public servant from exercising lawful authority; second, it obstructs the implementation of any legal process; third, it is convened for the commission of a criminal act or trespass; fourth, it aims to deprive someone of property rights through criminal force or threats; and fifth, even if the assembly was lawful at first, it later becomes unlawful. If individuals participate in such assemblies while armed with deadly weapons, Section 148 of the CrPC considers it a punishable offence. In such cases, police may resort to firing as a final measure to disperse the gathering.
Who Can Order Police to Open Fire
According to Regulation 145 of the Police Regulations, police may use firearms and deploy armed forces during riots and violent disturbances. Regulation 151 states that when an armed police contingent is deployed to control a riot or disperse an unlawful assembly and a magistrate is present with them: 1. The magistrate shall not interfere in the deployment of duties among the police force led by the commanding officer. 2. The magistrate shall be responsible for deciding when to use force and when to open fire. 3. When required, the magistrate will instruct the police commander to use force or open fire, but shall not override the officer’s discretion in executing the order. 4. The magistrate shall issue the warning notice as prescribed under Regulation 153(Ga)(2). 5. The magistrate shall retain the power to order the cessation of firing under Regulation 155(Gha). 6. When firearms are used, the magistrate must submit a report under Regulation 156(Ga).
Apart from magistrates, the officer-in-charge (OC) of a police station or any officer of higher rank may also order the use of firearms. Regulation 153(Ga)(3) clearly states that all police personnel involved in riot control or dispersing unlawful gatherings must wait for an order from a magistrate, the OC, or a higher-ranking officer before opening fire.
On this matter, legal expert Jyotirmoy Barua explained that multiple serious considerations must be weighed before deciding to fire. He emphasized that firing is an extreme and final measure, and that police must issue repeated warnings beforehand. The use of the phrase “multiple times” in the regulations underscores the importance of genuine, clear warnings—warnings that would make it clear to participants that their lives could be at serious risk. Only if they still refuse to disperse may police take ultimate action.
Was Sheikh Hasina’s order to open fire legal?
In an audio clip aired by the BBC, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is heard telling a government official over the phone: “I’ve already given instructions. I’m giving open instructions now. Use lethal weapons. Wherever you find them, shoot directly.” The BBC reports that it has verified the preliminary authenticity of the call recording through Bangladeshi authorities and its independent verification process.
Following the publication of the report, Tajul Islam, Chief Prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal established to investigate the killings, wrote in a Facebook post: “No comment needed. See for yourself. This call recording was recovered by a special investigating officer of the International Crimes Tribunal. This is just the trailer. Much more is coming. Stay tuned.”
When asked whether Sheikh Hasina, as Prime Minister, had the legal authority to give such a shoot-to-kill order against protesters, Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua responded: “Legally, she could not. Issuing such an order is unlawful. The Prime Minister was the chief executive, but she had no authority to order this. The question of authority only arises when the law is being followed. Nothing here was done under the law—it was entirely illegal.”
He added: “Her order was not administrative, even though she was the chief executive. She was giving a political order, deciding who should be killed or arrested. She had no jurisdiction to say such things. In special circumstances, only a magistrate can give an open fire order as a last resort, and the Police Regulation of Bengal clearly outlines when and how that may happen.”
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Manzill Murshid told Banglanews that while the Prime Minister can make policy decisions related to law and order—such as deploying the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB)—that deployment does not entitle anyone, not even the Prime Minister, to order firing. “Just because the Prime Minister says so doesn’t mean police will start shooting. There is no such provision. Orders to fire are situational,” he said.
Murshid further explained: “If a magistrate is not present, senior law enforcement officials may act in self-defence when there is no other way to save lives. But if a magistrate is present during the incident, then any use of live fire must be carried out only under their directive, and only per the law, as a last resort.”
Latest on the Trial Process
Following the collapse of fascist rule during the uprising, Sheikh Hasina fled to India to escape public fury. Accompanying her were then Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, several other ministers, MPs, and leaders and activists of the Awami League. However, many senior figures—including former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun—along with other ministers and MPs, were captured.
The trial has already begun for the brutal killings of students and civilians in July–August. The accused are fugitive former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, fugitive ex–Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, and former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun.
During the crackdown carried out by law enforcement in July and August, around 1,500 people were killed and nearly 25,000 were injured. Many lost their limbs, others lost their eyesight, and a large number were left permanently disabled. On May 12, the tribunal’s investigation agency submitted a prosecution report against the three, charging them with crimes against humanity, including issuing orders, incitement, conspiracy, assistance, and involvement in the killings.
On June 1, the International Crimes Tribunal officially accepted the charges against all three. On July 1, the prosecution filed a formal petition to begin the trial. On July 10, the three-member tribunal headed by Justice Golam Mortuza Majumdar issued an order to frame charges against them.
However, Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun was excluded from the charges after admitting guilt and agreeing to testify as a state witness (approver). The court stated that, in exchange for his testimony and full disclosure of the truth, he would be granted immunity.
In this case, the opening statement by the prosecution is scheduled for August 3, and witness testimony will begin on August 4.
In addition to this case, several other trials and investigations are underway at the tribunal against Sheikh Hasina, her ministers, civil servants, police officials, and Awami League leaders and activists.
SMS/
