Constitutional Analysis

We note with deep concern the statement made by the Honourable Prime Minister at the Nazrul Birth Anniversary event in Trishal, Mymensingh, wherein he declared, in a public forum, that the killer of Ramisa will receive the death penalty within one month.

This is not a policy statement. This is a sentence announcement. And that is precisely where the constitutional line is crossed.

The charge sheet in this case had not even been submitted to court at the time of this declaration. The Home Minister announced it would be filed the following day. That means no trial has commenced, no evidence has been judicially examined, no accused has been heard, and no judge has applied their mind to the facts. Yet the head of the executive has already declared the verdict and the punishment, with a one-month deadline attached to the judiciary.

This strikes at three constitutional pillars simultaneously.

• I. Article 22 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. When the executive prescribes the outcome of a trial before it begins, that separation collapses entirely.
• II. Article 35(3) guarantees every person the right to a fair trial. A fair trial becomes a legal fiction the moment the Prime Minister has already publicly announced its conclusion from a national stage.
• III. By attaching a one-month deadline to the judicial process, the executive is placing impermissible pressure on the court. Speed and justice are not the same thing. A court operating under executive timelines is not an independent court.

We state clearly, categorically, and without reservation: the perpetrator of Ramisa’s killing deserves the maximum punishment the law provides. The Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain already provides for it. We demand swift justice with full force of law.

But justice must walk through the courtroom door, not be handed down from a political stage. If this precedent is normalised, the same executive power that today declares death for the guilty can tomorrow declare acquittal for the powerful.

The Constitution does not bend to emotion. It must not be allowed to bend to politics either.