The flood of cases against prominent, and indeed not so prominent figures ranging from the vanguards to the runners of the previous regime has been dizzying. While it is understandable that the fall of an authoritarian regime prompts a wave of retribution, the breakdown of the system of dispensing justice, from law enforcement to going through the courts, has led to a farce in which every Tom, Dick and Harry has been popping up to claim their pound of flesh.

Let's start right from the top. With five more cases being registered on her name for the killings and attempted murder of people during the anti-quota protests in Dhaka, the total number of cases against deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has risen to 76 till Wednesday (Aug. 28). With this, Hasina has a total of 64 murder charges, seven allegations of crimes against humanity and genocide, three on abduction charges and two for other charges. This is just in the first three weeks after she fled. Can we reasonably expect these cases to stand the test of closer scrutiny in a court of law?

Most of the cases against Hasina that relate to deaths during the recent movement by the students assume she had 'command responsibility' for the indiscriminate killings of protesters. The doctrine of 'command responsibility' or 'superior responsibility' prescribes the criminal liability of those persons who, being in positions of command, have failed to either 'prevent' or 'punish' the crimes of their subordinates. This concept does not differentiate between military officers and civilians placed in positions of command since the duty to prevent and punish the offences of their subordinates in situations of armed conflict is considered to be incumbent upon both.

In our domestic law, the concept is contained within Section 4(2), International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (as amended in 2009), under which the perpetrators of the July-August massacres of students and others during protests across Bangladesh will be tried, according to Asif Nazrul, the adviser on law and parliamentary affairs to the current interim government. That is all very well, but we must see whether the laws written for a period of war can be applied effectively to a situation of civilian unrest.

Perhaps most importantly, what the deluge of cases being filed against the former prime minister fail to acknowledge is that the sheer number of cases opens up the current government to charges of judicial harassment, and make any future move to bring her back to the country to stand trial more difficult, not easier. The government has said it cannot prevent a case from being filed by any citizen, but there is room here for police stations to be more judicious in filing these cases. Hopefully once the police force is reorganised and able to stand stronger, we will see that happening. But it needs to happen fast, otherwise we risk turning the system of dispensing justice in the country into a mockery.