Flawed trial, political pressure, no defence: Why Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence stands on shaky legal ground

Political leaflets depicting Sheikh Hasina and his father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman are seen on the floor of the vandalised Awami League headquarters days after a student-led uprising that ended the 15-year rule of Awami League's leader Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka on August 10, 2024. (Photo by LUIS TATO / AFP)

The death sentence handed to former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina by the country’s so-called International Crimes Tribunal has raised serious legal and constitutional questions. Legal experts both inside and outside Bangladesh argue that the trial lacked jurisdiction, transparency, and fairness, and was driven more by politics than by justice.

The International Crimes Tribunal-Bangladesh (ICT-B) was created under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973, a law meant to prosecute those responsible for genocide and war crimes during the 1971 Liberation War. The tribunal was originally set up by Sheikh Hasina’s own government for that specific purpose.

Legal experts now argue that the court had no authority to try Hasina for crimes allegedly committed in 2024. Its jurisdiction, they say, does not extend beyond the 1971 war. As a result, the trial and its verdict rest on a legally unstable foundation.

A dubious amendment and a collapsed parliament

After Hasina’s government fell on 5 August 2024, the interim regime led by Muhammad Yunus amended the 1973 Act through an ordinance. Legal experts argue that the ordinance itself was invalid because it was issued by a non-constitutional government that lacked executive authority under Article 93 of the Bangladesh Constitution.

Parliament could not approve the amendment since it had already been dissolved. Analysts point out that the dissolution was not carried out through constitutionally prescribed procedures, but as a political reaction to mass protests. As one expert put it, this “poisons all subsequent legal and judicial acts.”

Judges without proper appointment or experience

The composition of the tribunal itself has drawn criticism. The three judges who delivered Hasina’s death sentence were appointed under questionable circumstances following the collapse of her government.

For instance, Justice Golam Mortuza Majumder, a retired district judge, was suddenly promoted to the High Court Division just six days before the tribunal announced it would hear Hasina’s case. Justice Mohitul Haque Mohammed Enam Chowdhury and Justice Shafiul Alam Mahmud were also promoted irregularly, without completing the mandatory two-year probationary period required under Article 98 of the Constitution.

None of the three judges had any prior experience in international criminal law, which is essential for adjudicating cases involving allegations of genocide or crimes against humanity. Reports also indicate that around two dozen judges aligned with the Jamaat-e-Islami and opposition BNP were irregularly promoted around the same time, raising further questions of political influence.

A compressed, prejudged trial

The ICT-B’s timeline also raises red flags. The tribunal ordered its investigation into Hasina’s case to be completed within 30 days — a near impossibility given the scale of the allegations. Legal observers say this suggests the verdict was “predetermined” long before the trial began.

Hasina’s trial lasted from 2 August to 23 October 2025, an unusually short period for a case involving thousands of pages of evidence and multiple charges.

Prosecutors with conflicts of interest

The tribunal’s prosecution team has also come under scrutiny. Chief Prosecutor Mohammed Tajul Islam once defended several Jamaat-e-Islami leaders convicted of war crimes during Hasina’s own tenure. British barrister Toby Cadman, who served as a legal adviser, had similarly represented Jamaat defendants.

This duality has led many to question the motives behind the case. “The true goal of the trial was not justice, but payback,” said one analyst.

Denial of legal defence

Hasina was denied the right to choose her own lawyer — a basic legal safeguard in any criminal trial. The court appointed Md Amir Hossain, a state lawyer with no experience in international criminal law, to represent her.

“I did not attempt to (communicate with Sheikh Hasina). There is no provision allowing such an attempt,” Hossain admitted. “They also did not try to contact me, nor did they provide any form of assistance.”

Senior lawyer ZI Khan Panna had volunteered to represent Hasina but was summarily rejected by the tribunal. Hossain received thousands of pages of prosecution evidence only weeks before the trial and did not request additional time to prepare.

The defence was also barred from cross-examining witnesses who made contradictory statements. This was permitted under a 2013 Appellate Division ruling in the Abdul Quader Mollah case, which the current prosecutors had ironically opposed at the time.

A trial tainted by political remarks

Even before proceedings began, members of the interim government made openly prejudicial comments about Hasina’s guilt. On 17 October 2024, Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam said, “The court has ordered the arrest of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and to produce her in court on 18 November. Sheikh Hasina was at the helm of those who committed massacres, killings and crimes against humanity from July to August. It is a remarkable day for us.”

Days later, IT Adviser Nahid Islam declared, “Hasina will not be able to return to Bangladesh to do politics, but only to walk the gallows.”

The court even issued a directive forbidding local media from publishing Hasina’s remarks — a move critics say further undermined her right to a fair hearing.

A verdict without credibility

Despite Bangladesh’s membership in the Rome Statute, the Yunus government chose not to refer the case to the International Criminal Court, which would have scrutinised the tribunal’s process. That decision, legal experts say, speaks volumes.

The ICT-B’s conduct, its questionable appointments, denial of defence rights, and political interference leave little doubt about the lack of fairness. “From start to finish, Sheikh Hasina was never given a free or fair trial,” said a Dhaka-based legal scholar.

Hasina, now in India, has dismissed the verdict as “baseless and political.” Most analysts agree that India is unlikely to extradite her, given the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the proceedings.

What stands today is not a judgment of justice, but a symbol of how a politically driven tribunal can distort the law. The so-called International Crimes Tribunal has proved once again that it is international only in name, and partisan in every other sense.