By Jane Mlambo| Five suspected criminals gunned down by police in December alone.

This stark statistic reignites a crucial debate: the use of lethal force by law enforcement.

Does it uphold justice, or cross the line into extrajudicial execution? Lawyers argue the line has been crossed.

They point to the fundamental principle of presumed innocence: everyone deserves a fair trial before facing the ultimate penalty.

Lawyer Dube aptly states, “No one has a right to kill anyone,” highlighting the gravity of taking a life without due process.

But another perspective emerges: fear for officer safety.

Lawyer Runganga calls the “shoot-to-kill policy” a “necessary evil” against armed robbers, arguing it protects officers.

Should police face a “kill or be killed” scenario, where does duty to self-preservation intersect with respect for human life?

The official police stance? No shoot-to-kill policy exists. They claim to respond proportionally to threats, only using lethal force against armed criminals who actively engage in gunfire.

However, the 2023 announcement by Commissioner-General Matanga, promising swift action against armed criminals, paints a different picture.

This heated debate exposes a larger dilemma: balancing public safety with fundamental rights.

While protecting officers is paramount, resorting to lethal force carries immense weight.

Every life lost, even that of a suspected criminal, demands accountability and raises questions about alternative measures.