When Partisan Loyalty Enters Police Speech: A Rule-of-Law Review of the Dhaka Range DIG’s Statement Before the Prime Minister
Introduction
During Police Week 2026, Dhaka Range Deputy Inspector General of Police Rezaul Karim Mallick reportedly stated before the Prime Minister that despite years of deprivation, humiliation, discrimination and mental harassment during the previous regime, he had not moved “even an inch from nationalist ideals.”
The statement was reportedly delivered at Shapla Hall of the Prime Minister’s Office in the presence of Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, senior ministers, the Home Secretary, the Inspector General of Police and other senior police officials.
The question is not whether a public officer may have personal memories, political experiences, or emotional reflections. The deeper constitutional question is whether a serving senior police commander should publicly frame his professional identity through partisan ideological loyalty while holding coercive authority of the state.
The Core Rule-of-Law Concern
Police authority is not ordinary administrative power. It includes the power to arrest, investigate, disperse assemblies, use lawful force, protect citizens, prevent crime, and influence access to justice. For this reason, policing must be visibly neutral, constitutionally grounded and professionally accountable.
When a senior police officer publicly presents ideological loyalty as a defining feature of his public identity, the institutional risk is significant. Citizens may reasonably ask whether law enforcement will remain equally protective toward people of different political opinions, civil-society positions, religious identities, journalistic roles or opposition affiliations.
Where the Statement Conflicts With Rule-of-Law Principles
1. Equality Before Law
The rule of law requires that all citizens receive equal protection from state institutions regardless of political belief. A serving police officer’s public emphasis on partisan ideological continuity may weaken confidence that citizens outside that political tradition will receive equal treatment.
2. Institutional Neutrality
The police service belongs to the republic, not to any party, ideology, faction or leader. A senior officer may speak about past injustice, administrative discrimination or career deprivation, but such matters should be framed through legality, due process and civil-service reform rather than partisan loyalty.
3. Merit-Based Public Service
In a democratic state, promotion, posting, recognition and rehabilitation within public service should be based on merit, integrity, competence and lawfulness. Public rhetoric that links professional survival to ideological fidelity risks encouraging a culture where political loyalty appears more important than public duty.
4. Public Trust in Law Enforcement
Public trust is one of the most important assets of policing. If citizens believe that the police are politically aligned, they may hesitate to file complaints, cooperate with investigations, attend police stations, participate in public assemblies, or seek protection when their rights are violated.
The Government’s Stated Rule-of-Law Position
Any government that claims commitment to democratic governance and rule of law must ensure that state institutions function with neutrality, accountability and legal restraint. The government’s public commitment to rule of law becomes difficult to sustain if senior officers use official platforms to express strong partisan allegiance.
The contradiction is therefore not merely rhetorical. It goes to the heart of state legitimacy. A government cannot credibly promise equal justice while tolerating public signals that coercive institutions are ideologically aligned.
Implications for Bangladesh
- For citizens: Political minorities, opposition supporters, activists, journalists and vulnerable groups may fear unequal treatment.
- For police professionalism: Younger officers may receive the wrong message that political identity is a career asset.
- For governance: Administrative neutrality may be weakened if partisan speech becomes normalized in official settings.
- For rule of law: Public confidence in impartial law enforcement may erode.
A Better Institutional Standard
A serving senior police officer may legitimately speak about injustice, wrongful dismissal, administrative suffering or institutional discrimination. However, the appropriate language should be constitutional, not partisan. The focus should be on fairness, due process, professional dignity, lawful remedy and institutional reform.
Bangladesh needs a policing culture where officers are protected from political victimisation, but also restrained from political display. Both are necessary. A politicised police service is dangerous whether it serves the ruling party, the opposition, or any ideological bloc.
Conclusion
The rule of law does not require public officials to erase their personal history. But it does require that public authority be exercised, and seen to be exercised, without partisan bias.
The police must belong to the people and the Constitution. They must not appear to belong to any political ideology. In a democratic state, the highest loyalty of a police officer is not to a party, leader or political tradition. It is to law, justice, public safety and equal protection of every citizen.
Author: Minhaz Samad Chowdhury
Independent Human Rights Defender & Governance Analyst
Editor, Bangladesh HR Defender | Co-founder, Civic Vision Bangladesh (CVB)
Authorship and Licensing:
The views expressed in this article are grounded in established principles of the rule of law. For feedback or rights-related inquiries, please contact:
info.hrdefender@gmail.com
© 2026 · This article is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please validate CAPTCHA