The Abrar Fahad murder case in Buet, Rifat Sharif murder case in Barguna, multiple post-July uprising cases, Ramisa rape and murder case in Pallabi, and many other incidents may differ in place, nature, and type of offence, but they share one striking similarity. In each case, public outrage went far beyond demanding punishment for the accused. A strong demand emerged—from social media users, criminal justice officials, and sometimes even from bar associations themselves—that no lawyer should defend the accused in court.
The anger behind such reactions is understandable. Heinous crimes shake the conscience of society. In cases involving rape, murder, political violence, or brutality against children, people often feel that the accused do not deserve any sympathy. Emotions become even more intense given the prevailing distrust in the justice system due to delays in delivering justice, allegations of corruption, or acting under political influence. To many, allowing legal defence for someone who has apparently confessed or whose guilt seems “obvious” feels like an insult to victims and their families.
This sentiment became particularly visible after the July 2024 uprising. As members and allies of the fallen regime were charged in various cases, accused individuals were sometimes attacked on court premises, beaten, and assaulted. Lawyers attempting to defend them often faced threats and mob hostility. Similar outrage was witnessed in 2019 when a renowned Supreme Court lawyer represented accused persons in the brutal killing of Buet student Abrar Fahad. Recently, after the shocking child rape and murder case in Pallabi in May 2026, many citizens and even some lawyers openly declared that no one should be allowed to defend the accused.
But the question remains: can a civilised criminal justice system function if accused persons are denied legal defense? The answer, both legally and morally, is no.
One of the foundational principles of justice is the doctrine of “natural justice,” particularly the principle that “no one should be condemned unheard.” Justice requires three essential components: the judge, the prosecution, and the defence. Without any one of these, a fair trial becomes impossible. A lawyer standing beside an accused person does not mean supporting the crime, rather, it ensures that the trial proceeds according to evidence, procedure, and law instead of emotion or mob sentiment.
The Constitution clearly guarantees this right. Article 33(1) recognises the right of every arrested person to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. Article 35(3) guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial before an independent and impartial court. Articles 31 and 35 further establish protection of law and due process as fundamental rights. If the state prosecutes someone while simultaneously denying them legal representation, the trial itself becomes constitutionally questionable.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Legal Aid Services Act, 2000 also recognise this principle. If no lawyer is willing to represent an accused person, the state is obligated to provide legal assistance at public expense. In fact, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh issued a directive in 2019 stating that if no lawyer stands for an accused in lower courts, the president and secretary of the local bar association must ensure representation.
History repeatedly demonstrated why such principles matter. There have been cases where people appeared unquestionably guilty before later evidence proved otherwise. False confessions, mistaken identities, political motivations, and public misinformation are not impossible. Even when guilt is genuine, legal defense remains essential to ensure that punishment is lawful, proportional, and based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Providing defense does not erase the crime; it protects the integrity of the justice system itself.
Some may argue that lawyers defending notorious offenders are morally compromised, but a defence lawyer’s role is not to prove innocence at all costs or justify criminality. Their duty is to ensure that the constitutional protections are preserved and that the state proves guilt through lawful means. If lawyers begin choosing clients based only on public approval, the rule of law would gradually transform into rule by mob emotion.
A society committed to justice must be willing to defend legal rights even for those it hates most. Otherwise, courts lose their neutrality, trials lose legitimacy, and punishments become acts of vengeance rather than justice. The demand should therefore not be to silence defence lawyers. It should be for speedy trials, fair investigations, judicial accountability, and appropriate punishment through due process. Because ultimately, the true test of the rule of law is not how it treats the innocent, but how it treats the accused.
Mahamud Khalid is an undergraduate student of criminology at the University of Dhaka.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
