Public Patience Is Not Weakness — It Supports Credible Process

Bangladesh is days away from a decisive moment. The 12 February 2026 election is not merely a routine democratic exercise; it is widely seen as central to the country’s political stability, sovereignty, and internal security. At precisely this sensitive juncture, renewed agitation around the killing of Sharif Osman Hadi has raised serious questions—not about whether justice will be done, but about how the issue is being used.
There is no dispute on the core principle: Hadi’s killing must be investigated and justice must be delivered. The interim government has never denied this. In fact, the state has already taken concrete steps—multiple investigations have been conducted, courts have overseen the process, and law-enforcement agencies including the CID have been engaged. These developments have been widely reported in mainstream Bangladeshi media.
Recognizing the political sensitivity of the case, the government has gone a step further. It has publicly committed to seeking a United Nations–supported investigation through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and has announced that an official letter will be sent to the UN by 8 February. This timeline itself reflects an attempt to balance urgency with due process. Such international engagement is neither cosmetic nor unusual—it reflects an acknowledgment that politically charged cases require enhanced transparency and credibility.
What is often ignored, however, is a basic legal reality: justice is a process, not an overnight event. A credible investigation—especially one involving international mechanisms, witness protection, possible cross-border dimensions, and accountability beyond direct perpetrators—inevitably takes time. For that reason, the government has explicitly asked for restraint and patience until the 8 February deadline, a position that aligns with established legal norms rather than political convenience.
Despite this, tensions are being deliberately escalated just days before the election. Protests framed as demands for justice have increasingly taken the form of street pressure, confrontation, and rhetoric that directly questions the legitimacy of the election itself. This escalation is taking place before the promised UN communication deadline has even passed, raising legitimate concerns about intent rather than impatience.
The emerging pattern suggests an effort to create a pseudo-crisis—to portray the election and the pursuit of justice as mutually exclusive, when in reality they are not. There is no verified evidence that the government intends to block justice to protect the election. On the contrary, its actions—court-supervised probes, international outreach, and a clearly stated timeline—point toward an effort to manage both responsibilities simultaneously.
Most Bangladeshis appear to understand this balance. Public sentiment, as reflected across media commentary and civil discourse, shows a willingness to wait for a credible process to unfold, even while demanding accountability. They want justice for a killing that shook the nation, and they want a peaceful, credible election on 12 February. These are not competing goals.
Justice will take its course. The election must take its course too. Patience in a legal process is not silence, and restraint is not surrender. Turning a tragedy into a tool to destabilize the democratic process is not accountability—it is manipulation. And increasingly, the public is able to tell the difference.