The Ramisa Case and Political Rhetoric Recently, an NCP leader named Monira Sharmin allegedly stated in a Facebook post that for a lawyer to defend the accused in the Ramisa rape and murder case would be a heinous crime. This is a highly alarming statement, especially coming from a central figure in a political party. Strictly speaking from a legal standpoint, denying legal representation is a severe violation of human rights—rights that are protected both by the Constitution of Bangladesh and by UN charters to which we are signatories. The top leadership of a political party should understand these fundamental principles.
The Danger of Moralizing Legal Defense Many people tend to turn the right to legal counsel into a moral issue. It can even become a moral dilemma for the lawyers themselves. We see this depicted in movies where a defense attorney discovers their client has committed a horrific crime, leading to moral distress as they argue for the client’s innocence or a reduced sentence.
In Bangladesh’s recent history, we have seen the real-world consequences of this moralizing. During the war crimes trials under Hasina’s regime, lawyers who stood for the accused faced severe harassment, attacks, and were even driven out of the country, as was the case with Jamaat’s Barrister Razzak. Similarly, lawyers defending clients in rape or blasphemy cases frequently face boycotts or mob violence in court premises. Today, with the recent surge in horrific violence against young children, public sentiment often dictates that the accused should be dragged out and publicly hanged, and that anyone defending them is complicit.
Protecting the Innocent: The Basic Premise At the most basic level, the argument for defense lawyers is about protecting the innocent. If the legal process is halted and defense is denied, many innocent people will become victims. A recent incident highlights this perfectly: a Maktab teacher was arrested after a 12-year-old girl became pregnant, only for it to be later revealed that the girl’s own brother was responsible. Society’s perversion has reached a different level, but the core takeaway is this: without legal representation, an innocent man would have been unjustly punished. Preventing the punishment of the innocent is a matter of grave concern.
Jurisprudence and Systemic Efficiency Moving beyond the basic premise, we must look at this from a jurisprudence point of view. What is the actual role of a defense lawyer?
In a courtroom, you have the judge, the plaintiff, the defendant, and their respective lawyers. An accused person likely does not know the legal codes or the most effective way to present their case. A defense lawyer steps in to secure the maximum legal benefit for them. If a criminal gets away, the problem does not lie with the defense lawyer. The failure lies with the law itself, the prosecution, the investigators, and the state’s Public Prosecutor (PP).
Consider an income tax lawyer who legally minimizes a client’s tax burden from 5 lakh taka to 7,000 taka by finding loopholes. Is the lawyer to blame, or is it the inefficiency and lack of skill of those who drafted the taxation laws? To make the judicial system—lawmakers, investigators, and judges—efficient, its flaws must be exposed. The defense lawyer plays the vital role of a “resistant component” in this system. By challenging the prosecution, they force the system to become more efficient.
The Dangers of a Unchallenged Prosecution Without defense lawyers, the consequences are disastrous. In Bangladesh, confessions—often extracted through physical abuse—are frequently treated as sole evidence by the prosecution and accepted by lower court judges. However, when these cases reach the High Court or the Appellate Division, these forced confessions are thrown out. By that time, the actual physical evidence is gone, and the crime can no longer be proven, allowing the real criminal to go free.
A shrewd defense lawyer prevents this. By proving that a forced confession is not valid evidence, they pressure investigators to look for real proof. They cross-examine witnesses, preventing false testimonies from going unchecked. Without this scrutiny, police become inefficient, evidence goes ungathered, and the security of the entire judicial system degrades.
The defense lawyer has a secrecy agreement with their client and has no reason to suffer moral agony over defending them. Their job is not to let the accused get away, but to fight the State and the prosecution to ensure the system is working effectively. Ostracizing or attacking these lawyers is the biggest barrier to judicial efficiency and ultimately allows more criminals to escape justice.
The Risks of a Weak Defense: The Hasina Trial Example Consider the ongoing situation regarding Hasina’s trials. The lawyer assigned to her side reportedly laughs at the proceedings, finding them amusing because the cases built against her are incredibly weak. In an ideal court, sustaining these cases will be very difficult, and as time passes, the evidence is disappearing.
Ideally, the state should have brought in a highly skilled, efficient lawyer from abroad to defend Hasina. A brilliant defense would have kept the prosecution, investigators, and the state on edge. The harder the defense fights, the more irrefutable the prosecution’s evidence must become. If Hasina is hastily convicted and given the death penalty, only for an international review to later find the proof insufficient, the narrative changes entirely. The real misdeeds she committed will be erased from the record, and she will be painted as a victim of a flawed process. Because she lacked a strong defense to properly test the evidence, unprovable crimes might be treated as proven, weakening the entire case.
Conclusion: A Warning to Political Leadership Having a defense lawyer is not just about protecting the innocent; it is about ensuring that criminals cannot outsmart the prosecution. It is a systemic requirement, not a moral dilemma. Our political parties and their central leadership must understand these nuances. Making insensitive, risky comments about denying legal representation effectively nullifies the entire judiciary. They must be warned to act with greater caution and respect for the legal process.
