Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal sentenced exiled ex-PM Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia for 2024 protest crackdowns, in a politically charged trial criticised as unfair retribution. This comment argues that such a verdict risk eroding democracy, drawing parallels with Pakistan while urging institutional restraint for genuine renewal.
On 17 November 2025, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia, convicting her of crimes against humanity during the crackdown on student protests in mid-2024. The ruling, delivered by a tribunal originally designed to prosecute atrocities from the 1971 Liberation War, has unsettled an already polarised nation. For a state still scarred by the assassination of its founding leader, the verdict carries the weight of historical déjà vu.
A Familiar Spectre: The Ghost of 1975
Bangladesh has been here before. On 15 August 1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s founding father and Hasina’s father, was murdered along with most of his family in a violent military coup. The assassination unleashed a cycle of counter‑coups, military rule and political purges. Indemnity laws shielded the conspirators for decades, leaving a residue of impunity and distrust that has never fully dissipated.
Hasina, then in exile, returned years later to lead the Awami League and ultimately the country. Her government reopened the Mujib murder trials and in 2010, the perpetrators of heinous crimes were brought to justice. Yet many in Bangladesh believe the deeper architecture of the 1975 conspiracy; its foreign patrons, domestic collaborators and institutional weaknesses were never completely exposed.
The Fall of a Matriarch
Between 2009 and 2024, Hasina presided over rapid economic growth, an ambitious expansion of infrastructure and a period of steady, if sometimes hard edged, regional diplomacy. Yet her long tenure also accumulated political fatigue. Opposition voices were increasingly circumscribed and crises from economic pressures to governance controversies began to test the limits of her authority. The breaking point came in mid-2024, when protests over civil-service quotas swelled into a nationwide revolt. As the protests grew increasingly violent, security forces were forced to respond with force. Amid the unrest, the military announced Hasina’s resignation in August 2024, facilitating her flight to India.
A Tribunal’s Overreach?
The repurposing of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to try a contemporary political leader has drawn sharp scrutiny. The ICT was created to prosecute crimes from 1971, not to adjudicate present day political violence. Hasina was tried in absentia, represented by court‑appointed lawyers and denied the counsel of her choice. Legal scholars note that such procedures fall short of the fair trial guarantees enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is bound.
Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Human Rights Office, criticised the process, focussing on fair trial violations and condemned the death penalty. The trial, many critics argued, appeared less an exercise in judicial independence than a performance of political retribution. The Director of International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)— a globally respected legal rights watchdog, based in London— Baroness Helena Kennedy said the developments suggested “the justice system in Bangladesh is being used to advance unfair or politically influenced trials,” adding that fair-trial guarantees remain mandatory “even during political transition or states of emergency.” Sheikh Hasina herself said from exile, the tribunal’s proceedings were “politically motivated victor’s justice”.
Echoes from Across the Border
South Asia offers sobering parallels. Pakistan’s political history is littered with the judicial or violent elimination of leaders: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto hanged in 1979 after a tainted trial; Benazir Bhutto assassinated in 2007; Imran Khan imprisoned and disqualified through retributory legal manoeuvres. Each episode eroded public trust and tightened the military’s grip. Bangladesh risks drifting towards the same pattern where courts become instruments of political settlement rather than guardians of constitutional order. Hyphenating Bangladesh with Pakistan is indeed not in the country’s interest by any yardstick.
Inspiring Democracy Next Door
Elsewhere in the region, democracies have shown that crises need not overwhelm institutions. Sri Lanka, despite economic collapse and mass protest, navigated its transition through constitutional means. Malaysia’s revolving‑door governments changed through parliamentary arithmetic, not force. Australia and Japan demonstrate how mature institutions can absorb political turbulence without imperilling stability. In this wider landscape, India offers a reminder subtle but instructive of democratic endurance. Despite polarisation and periodic institutional strain, its courts, legislatures and federal design have continued to function as counterweights to executive ambition. Leaders come and go through elections, not extraordinary tribunals.
 The lesson for Bangladesh is not to emulate any single model, but to recognise the virtue of institutional resilience. Democracies that invest in independent courts, competitive politics and inclusive processes are better equipped to weather storms than those that rely on punitive exceptionalism.
Diplomatic and Domestic Crosscurrents
India, where Hasina resides, has remained cautious. New Delhi appears intent on avoiding further destabilisation in a country central to its eastern neighbourhood strategy. At home, the political temperature is rising. On 11 December 2025, Bangladesh’s Election Commission announced that the next national election will be held on 12 February 2026. Yet the Awami League, Bangladesh’s largest and historically dominant political force, has been barred from participating. While smaller parties have welcomed the timetable, the exclusion of a major political actor casts a long shadow over the vote’s legitimacy. An election without meaningful competition is not a remedy for crisis; it is an invitation to deepen it.
Conclusion: The Choice Before the Republic
The death sentence handed to Sheikh Hasina is not merely a legal verdict. It reflects how fragile Bangladesh’s democratic institutions have become and how easily they can be bent to serve narrow political ends. The country stands at a juncture familiar in its history, between the impulse for retribution and the imperative for restraint.
Pakistan serves as a significant example illustrating the potential risks associated with institutionalised retaliation. Other democracies, nearer and farther, suggest that stability is anchored not in erasing rivals but in strengthening the rules that govern all. For a nation founded on the promise of dignity and self-determination, the path forward is clear. Bangladesh must reject the politics of exceptionalism and commit, instead, to the slower but surer work of democratic renewal. Its future depends on whether it chooses to rise above its past.
Mudassir Bhat is a freelance commentator on South Asian politics. The views are his own.
Comments