Skip to main content

Hasina’s death sentence underscores deep political fault lines in Bangladesh’s judiciary


By Dr. Manoj Kumar Mishra* 
The sentencing of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death has once again exposed the deep politicization of Bangladesh’s judicial institutions. The International Crimes Tribunal-Bangladesh (ICT-BD), in indicting Hasina for directing a violent crackdown on student protests in the summer of 2024, relied heavily on a recorded conversation that investigators deemed authentic and that allegedly showed her authorizing excessive force, including the use of helicopters, drones, and live ammunition on unarmed protesters. 
According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, around 1,400 people were killed during the 46-day agitation. Yet the broader framing of the case and the selectivity of the evidence have renewed concerns that the verdict was shaped less by legal merits than by political motives.
The pattern is not new. Since its inception in 1973 and its reactivation in 2009, the ICT has been viewed as structurally prone to executive influence. Although the Tribunal was established to deliver justice for mass atrocities committed during the 1971 conflict—atrocities of staggering proportions that included the killing of an estimated three million people, widespread displacement, and the rape of hundreds of thousands—the judicial process has long been clouded by accusations of partisanship. 
The Tribunal’s selective focus, particularly its neglect of crimes committed against Biharis and others accused of siding with West Pakistan, fostered the perception that its mandate was never applied evenly. Crimes attributed to political adversaries were aggressively pursued, while those associated with groups aligned with the ruling dispensation were conspicuously omitted from the category of crimes against humanity.
The Tribunal’s reactivation in 2009 under the Awami League further entrenched concerns that the institution served political ends. Unlike hybrid or international tribunals operating under UN oversight—such as those in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, or the former Yugoslavia—the ICT remained entirely domestic in composition and procedure, without international checks on judicial standards. 
Structural weaknesses became recurrent features: the imposition of death sentences, trials in absentia, allegations of fabricated or selectively interpreted evidence, and definitions of crimes that deviated from established international norms. Particularly striking was the omission of “widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population” from the Tribunal’s definition of crimes against humanity, an omission that seemed to allow the court wide discretionary power to interpret cases in politically expedient ways.
Long-standing criticisms of the ICT point to patterns of bias, including the targeting of opposition leaders, restrictions on defence access to evidence, inadequate notice of charges, and instances of double jeopardy. Reports from rights organizations have documented witness intimidation, inappropriate coordination between prosecutors and judges, and indications that outcomes were predetermined. The inability to file appeals against many ICT decisions further undermined its credibility.
The irony of Hasina’s current situation is considerable: the leader who revived the Tribunal now stands condemned by it, while parties historically opposed to her, such as Jamaat-e-Islami, are openly calling for the sentence to be executed. 
Reports surrounding her trial suggest serious procedural lapses, controversial judicial appointments, a hurried pace of proceedings, and limitations placed on the defence amid a politically charged environment. These issues raise doubts not only about the fairness of this particular trial but also about the broader health of Bangladesh’s judiciary.
What was intended to signal an uncompromising commitment to justice has instead reinforced the perception of a system vulnerable to political manipulation. The Hasina verdict risks becoming another episode in a long history of judicial weaponization in Bangladesh, deepening polarization and casting a long shadow over the country’s democratic trajectory.
---
*Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SVM Autonomous College, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

Comments

Post a Comment

TRENDING

Can free‑living Indian street dogs teach us about how to care for pet dogs?

By Daniel Ramp, Kapil Vishwas Patwardhan, Rosalie Chapple  We give our pet dogs shelter, veterinary care, affection, training and play. We decide when they eat, where they sleep, when they go outside, who they meet, and how they move through the world.
Post a Comment
»

Grain vs. gasoline: How the global biofuel boom threatens India’s food and water security

By Rajiv Shah  A new report published by the international research and advocacy organization GRAIN has warned that the global resurgence of biofuels is triggering a dangerous dynamic of “more fuel, less food, more land grabs.” Driven by intersecting energy security concerns, geopolitical tensions, and aggressive decarbonization mandates, the expanding agrofuel industry is increasingly pitting corporate energy interests against global food security and indigenous land rights. 
Post a Comment
»

Sikkim governor row: ALIFA asks centre to explain hurried appointment in Ankita Bhandari case

By A Representative   The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) on Saturday expressed “immense pain and outrage” that even after four years and a national uproar, justice has not been fully delivered in the Ankita Bhandari murder case and that a ruling party politician facing allegations has been “gifted a high-ranking constitutional office.” In a statement, ALIFA extended “unflinching solidarity” to Ankita’s parents, who it said are “fighting for justice on the streets of Delhi,” and demanded that pending the CBI inquiry and judicial decision, the appointment of BJP leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as Sikkim’s Governor be subject to “immediate presidential review.”
Post a Comment
»