|
In a landmark ruling that has shaken Bangladesh’s already turbulent political landscape, the country’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia for crimes against humanity.
The verdict — delivered on Monday — adds fuel to an already fractious political scene in Bangladesh – but what’s behind it ?
The ICT found Hasina guilty on multiple counts including ordering lethal force, murder, and failing to prevent atrocities during the July–August 2024 uprising.
According to the tribunal’s 453-page judgment, Hasina directed the use of helicopters, drones, and live ammunition to suppress protesters. The court referenced secretly recorded phone calls in which she allegedly instructed officers to “shoot protestors anywhere they can.”
The ruling also imposed the death sentence on Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, the former Home Minister, while Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, ex-Police Chief, received a five-year prison term after testifying for the prosecution. Tribunal prosecutors said they would seek to seize Hasina’s assets and try to reissue international warrants via Interpol. She is currently in hiding across the border in India.
The background to all of this is the political upheaval that shook Bangladesh in 2024. Student-led protests began over a controversial quota policy that reserved 30 percent of civil service jobs for freedom fighters’ descendants — a system many young Bangladeshis argued blocked merit-based access. What started as a series of street demonstrations rapidly grew into a national uprising, sparking a violent government crackdown and numerous casualties.
By August 2024, Hasina — who had ruled for 15 years — was forced into exile in India, and an interim government was installed under Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus. For the new authorities, bringing Hasina to justice became a top priority, both politically and symbolically.
During the months-long proceedings, the court heard from dozens of witnesses — including protest survivors, doctors, and officials — while prosecutors introduced a vast body of physical and documentary evidence: phone recordings, ballistic reports, flight logs, and forensic data.
From her self-imposed exile in India, Hasina rejected the court’s legitimacy, calling the trial a “politically motivated charade.” She claimed she was denied a fair defence asserting she had “no fair chance to defend myself.”
In audio messages, she remained defiant: “Let them issue whatever verdict they want … Allah gave me this life, and only He can end it. I will still serve my people,” she said.
The Awami League, her party, denounced the tribunal as a “kangaroo court” and has called for a nationwide shutdown in protest of the ruling.
The debate in Bangladesh is now all about the fallout from the court ruling – with some analysts arguing the ruling further polarises an already deeply divided country.
For many in the interim government, the judgment is a powerful signal: no senior official is beyond accountability. For Hasina’s supporters, the whole process is a political hit-job designed to cripple opposition to the current administration.
The outcome also raises questions about the integrity of the upcoming February 2026 elections, which the interim government has promised to oversee.
With the Awami League’s ban still in place and its leader in exile under a death sentence, doubts are mounting over how inclusive or legitimate the vote can be.
The decision may indeed make it easier to extradite Hasina from India, but exactly how the Modi government regards that course of action is unclear.
Sheikh Hasina’s case has now become a symbol: of generational anger, institutional failure, and the precarious immediate future of Bangladesh’s democracy.
For many Bangladeshis, the risk is clear: this could be the beginning of a new cycle of retribution, not reconciliation.
Asia Media Centre
|
