Tanzina Fardoush
Commissioning Editor, The Oniket Bulletin
Last week, we discussed the widely recognized sensational cases, where our legal system has delivered justice, but the execution remains unattended, or unresolved. This week, we summarize our verdict on these unresolved executions of the cases.
A pattern beyond individual cases
Taken together from last week’s cases, these reveal different forms of delay. In the Sagar–Runi and Tonu cases, the central concern is the prolonged investigation and the absence of a final judicial determination. In the Narayanganj seven-murder and Nusrat cases, substantial judicial decisions have been delivered, but the later stages of the legal process have taken years. The Abrar Fahad case similarly demonstrates the distance between conviction and finality.
These distinctions matter because there is no single remedy for every form of delay. An investigation that repeatedly fails to produce a report requires a different response from an appellate court facing an excessive backlog. A missing witness, an unavailable forensic report, an unprepared paper book and a delayed appeal are not interchangeable problems.
Yet they share a common institutional weakness: responsibility for moving a case forward is often fragmented, while the consequences of delay fall overwhelmingly on victims’ families. When cases change hands between investigative agencies, new teams must familiarise themselves with existing records. Evidence may deteriorate, witnesses may become difficult to locate, and investigative priorities may change. Without a documented handover, a clear investigative strategy and individual accountability, transferring a case can create the appearance of action without guaranteeing progress.
The human cost of waiting
Behind every pending case is a family attempting to live with an unresolved loss. Parents grow older while waiting for answers. Children grow up without a murdered parent. Witnesses struggle to remember details, and families may face repeated court appearances, financial pressures and social exhaustion.
The psychological burden of uncertainty is different from the pain of a completed legal process. When a case remains unresolved, families cannot be certain whether the available evidence has been fully examined or whether those responsible have been identified.
Prolonged proceedings can also weaken public trust. When some cases receive exceptional attention while others remain largely invisible, citizens may conclude that justice depends on publicity, political influence or personal connections. That perception is damaging even when it does not accurately describe every individual case. The rule of law requires that comparable cases receive fair and consistent treatment regardless of public prominence.
Delay can also create conditions for public anger to turn into mob violence. When people believe that lawful institutions cannot deliver justice, some may attempt to punish suspects themselves. Such acts cause further harm and undermine the presumption of innocence and the authority of the courts. Justice delayed therefore carries costs beyond the courtroom. It affects public confidence, social stability and the credibility of the state.
Reform must begin with accountability
Bangladesh needs reforms that address the entire criminal justice process, from the first response to a crime through investigation, prosecution, trial, appeal and final implementation of lawful sentences.
First, investigations need enforceable timelines. Serious cases should have clear investigation plans, periodic progress reviews and written explanations for repeated extensions. Where delays result from negligence or avoidable administrative failure, supervisory authorities should be required to respond. Deadlines must remain realistic. Complex forensic investigations may require additional time, but extensions should be evidence-based rather than routine.
Second, investigative transfers should be exceptional and transparent. Every transfer should identify the reasons, preserve the chain of custody of evidence and establish responsibility for outstanding investigative tasks. A new agency should not be allowed to restart the process without accounting for the work already completed.
Third, forensic capacity must improve. DNA analysis, digital forensics, reliable evidence storage and timely laboratory reporting should become integral to serious crime investigations. Laboratories also need adequate staffing, quality controls and transparent procedures for communicating findings to investigators and courts.
Fourth, prosecution must become more professional and accountable. Investigators and prosecutors should coordinate early so that evidence is collected and preserved in a form that can withstand judicial scrutiny. Prosecutorial independence, professional training and clear responsibility for case preparation are essential.
Fifth, appellate courts need stronger case management. Dedicated benches, digital paper books, electronic case tracking and realistic disposal schedules could reduce avoidable delays in death references and other serious criminal appeals. Court administration should publish aggregate data showing how long cases remain at each stage.
Sixth, legal representation must be secured early. Timely appointments of state-funded defence counsel can protect the rights of accused people while reducing procedural delays caused by late appointments. Legal aid for victims and their families can also help them understand proceedings and access available support.
Seventh, witness protection and victim support must become routine. Families should receive reliable information about case progress, witnesses should be protected against intimidation, and victims’ relatives should not have to rely solely on media coverage to learn what is happening.
Finally, the justice system should publish meaningful performance indicators. These should include investigation completion times, reasons for repeated adjournments, case backlogs, appellate disposal periods and compliance with court-ordered deadlines. Such information would help policymakers distinguish genuine resource constraints from administrative failure.
Speed without fairness is not justice
The demand for faster justice must never become a demand to abandon due process. A wrongful conviction is a grave injustice. An execution cannot be reversed. The right to appeal, the requirement to examine evidence and the obligation to give the accused a fair hearing are essential protection, not bureaucratic obstacles to be discarded.
But fairness does not require indefinite waiting. A system can protect legal rights while improving the quality of investigations, reducing unnecessary adjournments, preparing records efficiently and holding responsible institutions accountable for avoidable delays.
The real test of a justice system is not how quickly it can deliver a verdict in one highly publicised case. It is whether every family can expect a competent investigation, a fair trial and a legally sound outcome within a reasonable period.
Ramisa Akter, Abrar Fahad, Sohagi Jahan Tonu, Sagar Sarowar, Meherun Runi, Nusrat Jahan Rafi and the victims of the Narayanganj seven murders represent different experiences of Bangladesh’s criminal justice system. Their cases cannot all be reduced to the same procedural problem, and their legal outcomes must be described according to the evidence and the stage each case has reached.
Yet they point to a shared obligation: justice must be more than a verdict announced in court or a promise repeated after public outrage. It must be a process that investigates effectively, adjudicates fairly and reaches a credible conclusion without unnecessary delay.
Because justice is not fully delivered when a judgment is pronounced. It is delivered when the law has done its work fairly, transparently and in time and when no family is left waiting indefinitely for an answer.
