Bangladesh (Commonwealth Union)_ In a dramatic and unprecedented verdict, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal has ruled a death sentence for former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, concluding that she was responsible for crimes against humanity linked to last year’s student-led uprising. The ruling marks one of the most consequential legal decisions in the country’s recent history, immediately stirring political tensions across the region and triggering diplomatic trouble for India, where Hasina has been living in exile. The tribunal found Hasina guilty on three major counts, including ordering a deadly crackdown on mass protests that erupted across the country in mid-2024.
Those protests, led largely by university students demanding reforms and accountability, ultimately forced the collapse of her long-standing Awami League government. The judgement concluded a months-long trial that ran with unusual speed and was closely watched both inside Bangladesh and abroad. Alongside Hasina, the court also delivered verdicts against two of her former top officials: the ex-Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun. According to the tribunal, the three individuals acted in coordination to commit acts of violence intended to silence the demonstrators. While Kamal was also sentenced to death in absentia, Mamun received a formal pardon after cooperating with the tribunal and publicly apologizing for his role. Hasina and Kamal were tried in absentia after being declared fugitives by the state, whereas Mamun initially appeared in court before agreeing to turn state witness.
The court judgement
In an extensive judgment delivered before a packed courtroom in Dhaka, the tribunal described a systematic campaign of state violence allegedly orchestrated from the highest levels of Hasina’s government. The judges said the administration not only ignored the students’ demands but deliberately inflamed tensions through inflammatory public remarks. Hasina’s comment referring to the student protesters as “Razakars,” a deeply loaded term in the country that implies treachery, was cited as a turning point in the unrest. According to the tribunal, this remark sparked widespread anger and intensified the protests, especially among female students who dominated several university-led marches. Rather than de-escalating the situation, the judges said Hasina responded by directing security forces and pro-government groups to eliminate the demonstrators.
Witnesses presented by the prosecution described targeted attacks on students at Dhaka University, carried out by members of affiliated wings of the ruling party, including the Chhatra League and the Jubo League. Testimony also claimed the government authorized law enforcement agencies to use drones to locate protest gatherings and even helicopters equipped with live ammunition to disperse crowds. The judges said these actions demonstrated intent to kill and suppress dissent with lethal force. The tribunal concluded that both Kamal and Mamun contributed to the deadly crackdown by enabling the use of drones and weapons and by failing to prevent atrocities. Mamun, however, received leniency after admitting his involvement and cooperating fully. The bench interpreted Hasina and Kamal’s absence from the trial as a further indication of guilt. In its conclusive remarks, the tribunal stated that Hasina was guilty of incitement, of directly ordering violence, and of failing to act to prevent widespread abuses. “We have decided to impose only one sentence—death,” the presiding judge said, drawing a heavy silence across the courtroom.
Also read: PM Modi in Bhutan: What Modi set in motion in Bhutan?
Charges against Hasina
The case against the former prime minister centered on five key charges, including murder, attempted murder, torture, and other inhumane acts. Among them, the most serious accusation was that Hasina ordered the “extermination” of protesters. The prosecution argued that she not only incited violence through public statements but also oversaw a coordinated use of lethal weapons against civilian demonstrators. International observers had earlier reported a large number of casualties during the July and August 2024 protests. A rights report from the United Nations estimated that as many as 1,400 people may have been killed nationwide during the month-long crackdown.
The violence intensified after the government invoked emergency powers and deployed security forces to clear protest sites, leading to global condemnation and eventually causing the fall of Hasina’s administration on August 5, 2024. Hasina, now 78, fled Bangladesh the day before her ouster, crossing into India, where she has remained ever since. The tribunal had ordered her appearance multiple times, but she refused to return, saying she had no confidence in the fairness or independence of the proceedings.
Hasina reacts to the verdict
Within minutes of the judgment being announced, Sheikh Hasina released a strongly worded statement rejecting the charges outright. She dismissed the proceedings as a politically motivated campaign orchestrated by what she described as extremists within the unelected interim government. She argued that the tribunal lacked legitimacy, claiming it did not provide her or her party with a fair opportunity to defend themselves. She said the court’s members had shown open sympathy for the current authorities and that several senior judges and lawyers who might have supported her had been removed or silenced.
According to her, the tribunal targeted only leaders of the Awami League while ignoring documented cases of violence committed by other political groups, including attacks on religious minorities. Hasina reiterated that she never ordered the killing of protesters and mourned the loss of life on all sides. She called the trial “rigged” and questioned the tribunal’s claim to be “international” or impartial. The verdict, she said, should not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the world.
Bangladesh asks India to extradite Hasina
The verdict has now placed India in a politically sensitive position. Shortly after the sentencing, the interim government in Bangladesh issued a formal request to New Delhi seeking the extradition of Hasina and Kamal. Bangladesh’s foreign ministry said the extradition treaty between the two countries made it mandatory for India to hand them over, arguing that offering shelter to individuals convicted of crimes against humanity would be seen as an unfriendly act. The interim administration, led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, has maintained that both individuals must return to face justice. Officials said they would renew their request in writing and expected India to act in line with its legal obligations under the treaty.
India’s response
India reacted cautiously to the developments. In its first public statement following the verdict, the Ministry of External Affairs said it had “noted” the ruling of the tribunal and emphasized that India’s priority remained the stability, peace, and democratic well-being of Bangladesh. The ministry said India would continue to engage constructively with all stakeholders but did not indicate whether it planned to act on the extradition request. New Delhi avoided commenting directly on whether Hasina would be sent back, signaling that it intends to tread carefully amid the rapidly shifting political climate in Dhaka.
Hasina’s son calls the trial a “sham”
Sajeeb Wazed, Hasina’s son, spoke strongly against the verdict, calling the trial a “sham” carried out by what he described as an illegal and unelected regime. He noted that the trial lasted just 140 days, which he said was unusually fast for such a serious case. He also pointed out that the country currently has no functioning parliament, raising legal concerns about changes made to expedite the process. Wazed insisted that the verdict held no legitimacy and argued that India would not be obligated to comply with what he called an unlawful extradition request. He said he was not worried about his mother’s safety, expressing confidence that New Delhi would assess the situation based on legality rather than political pressure.
Tensions rise as Bangladesh braces for unrest
As news of the verdict spread, Bangladesh braced for renewed unrest. Security was tightened across major cities, with Dhaka witnessing large deployments of army units, riot police, and border guards. The capital’s streets remained largely empty as authorities warned of potential violence. The Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner issued shoot-at-sight orders against anyone attempting acts of arson or attacks on civilians and police. The now-disbanded Awami League had called for a two-day shutdown ahead of the ruling, raising fears of fresh clashes. For now, Bangladesh finds itself at a political crossroads. The tribunal’s judgment has deepened divisions within the country, complicated regional diplomacy, and raised pressing questions about what comes next for one of South Asia’s most influential political figures.
