Introduction
The initiation of proceedings against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina before the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has sparked significant concern both within and outside Bangladesh. The ICT was established as a special tribunal to prosecute crimes committed during the Liberation War of 1971. Its recent use against a leader who has led the democratic struggle in Bangladesh for nearly four decades and her party Awami League led the Bengali nation’s struggle for liberation and the War of Independence. These matters raise profound constitutional, procedural, and legitimacy issues. The tribunal’s composition, the amendments made to its enabling legislation, and the broader political context collectively cast serious doubt on the legality and fairness of the proceedings. This report systematically examines these concerns—analyzing the constitutionality of the 2024 and 2025 Ordinances that amended the ICT law, structural deficiencies in the amended ICT framework, questions of access to justice, allegations of political motivation, and the pervasive fear of a predetermined verdict.
The so-called interim government led by Yunus, which has seized power in Bangladesh illegally and unconstitutionally, has orchestrated a completely unlawful, unjust, and one-sided farcical trial in the International Crimes Tribunal against Sheikh Hasina—the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and daughter of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on the allegations of ‘crime against humanity.’
This is not a trial by any standard of justice. Rather, it evokes the practices of the ancient and medieval times, when invading forces, having conquered a kingdom, would execute or imprison the deposed ruler under the pretext of trial. In a similar manner, on 5 August 2024, the constitutionally elected government of Bangladesh was overthrown through an illegal and unconstitutional coup by an unlawful group that seized power. Under the guise of judicial proceedings, they have planned to sentence Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death, driven by the ulterior motive of eliminating her and her party, Bangladesh Awami League, from Bangladesh’s political landscape.
The democracy-loving people of Bangladesh believe that the ongoing wave of mob terrorism across the country is being accompanied by acts of judicial terrorism and mockery in the name of trials orchestrated under the directives of Yunus’s extremist group.
Unveiling the Truth Behind the 2024 Student Movement and the Conspiracy to Destabilize Bangladesh
The illegal interim government of Yunus, supported by the BNP, Jamaat, and Islamist militant groups, has brought charges of crimes against humanity against Sheikh Hasina in connection with the student movement and the violence that occurred in July–August. We need to know the true sequence of events behind the student movement of July–August 2024.
The students’ movement was originally about reforming the quota system. In response to their demand, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina abolished the quota system in 2018. The students welcomed her decision. Until June 2024, no further issues arose regarding this matter.
In June 2024, following a petition filed in the High Court by a few children of freedom fighter families challenging the 2018 government decision to abolish quotas, the High Court annulled the government’s order that had ended the quota system. As a result, the quota for the freedom fighters’ descendants was reinstated.
Considering the students’ expectations, the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina decided to uphold the 2018 abolition of the quota system. Therefore, under the Prime Minister’s directive, the government appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court verdict. At the same time, to prevent any complications arising from the High Court judgment, the government filed an application requesting that the verdict be stayed immediately.
In response, the Appellate Division stayed the High Court’s verdict, which effectively reinstated the abolition of the quota system. Consequently, there was no harm or problem caused to students or job seekers.
The government informed the students that, since the matter was now under judicial consideration, the Supreme Court would deliver the final decision on the issue. The government also assured that it would stand on the side of the students in court. The government’s position and the students’ expectations were therefore aligned.
A vested interest group, with the ill motive of creating unrest in the country and destroying the democratic system, carried out terrorist attacks at Dhaka University and several other educational institutions. Subsequently, they launched terrorist attacks on a few state establishments in Dhaka, causing extensive damage to government property. In the midst of the unrest and anarchy, a few students were deliberately killed by hired assassins as part of a planned attempt to overthrow the government. Such conspiracies to topple governments have been witnessed in many countries around the world.
In this context, on July 17, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, in her address to the Nation, referred to the students’ demands and said that since the matter was under trial in the highest court, the final decision would be given by the Supreme Court. She assured the students that they would not be disappointed — the government would stand by them.
The Prime Minister also formed a high-level judicial inquiry committee headed by a Supreme Court judge to conduct a proper investigation and ensure justice for those responsible for the deaths that had occurred. She announced assistance for the families of the victims.
In accordance with the expectations of the students, the hearing of the quota-related case was expedited upon a special request from the government. At the special request of the Attorney General, the representative of the students was made a party to the case. On July 21, the Supreme Court delivered its final verdict, overturning the earlier judgment of the High Court. Through this verdict, the students’ expectations regarding quota reform were fulfilled by the highest court.
At Ganabhaban (Prime Minister’s residence), the Prime Minister expressed her condolences to the families of all those who were killed in the violent incidents and provided financial assistance of Tk 1 million (10 lakh) to each family. She arranged advanced medical treatment for all the injured persons, including students, in the Combined Military Hospital (CMH) and other specialized hospitals. The Prime Minister personally visited the hospitals to see the injured and handed over financial aid to each of them with her own hands.
Even after all this, the terrorists belonging to the BNP-Jamaat alliance carried out terrorist attacks on various state establishments in Dhaka, causing extensive destruction. The killings that took place in July and August were premeditated. These murders and attacks were orchestrated with the objective of overthrowing the government by creating anger, dissatisfaction, and instability in the country. Why would the government, while in power, carry out such killings? Who gains and who loses from these murders?
Weaponizing the Liberation War Legacy: A Mockery of Justice Against Sheikh Hasina
In the Constitution, written with the blood of three million martyrs, lies a sacred commitment to bring to justice those responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed during the Great Liberation War of 1971. To fulfill that historic pledge, the government of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, enacted the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973. Pursuing that same mission, the government of his daughter, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, conducted trials under this law to prosecute those accused of wartime atrocities—efforts that earned widespread international recognition.
Today, however, in a reprehensible act of political vengeance against Bangabandhu’s daughter Sheikh Hasina, the Awami League, and other defenders of the Liberation War’s ideals, anti-liberation forces – backed by the illegal and unconstitutional so-called interim government – have brought false and fabricated charges of “crime against humanity” based on baseless and imaginary allegations. In blatant defiance of the rule of law, they have initiated one of the most egregious, farcical, and unlawful judicial processes in history.
Fairness of Trial Without Defense Representation or Standard Evidence
In the cases filed with the International Crimes Tribunal accusing Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of involvement in crimes against humanity, she was not allowed to present any lawyer in her defense. Even lawyers known to support the Awami League were not permitted to enter the Tribunal. No opportunity was given to submit any evidence in Sheikh Hasina’s defense. No witness was allowed to be present in favor of Sheikh Hasina. The Tribunal unilaterally accepted the fabricated and pre-arranged evidence presented by the prosecution. These so-called evidences were prepared under the direction of the illegal power usurpers who seized control after August 5, with the assistance of state institutions under their control.
The principle of a fair trial lies at the heart of both domestic constitutional guarantees and international human rights law. A criminal proceeding in which the accused is denied the right to legal representation or the opportunity to present witnesses in his defense cannot, by any reasonable or legal standard, be considered fair or just.
Article 35 of the Constitution of Bangladesh ensures the right to a fair trial and due process. Similarly, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a party, provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choice and to examine witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as the prosecution.
A trial that excludes these basic safeguards effectively deprives the accused of the means to challenge the prosecution’s case. The absence of defense counsel or witnesses creates a one-sided process that undermines the presumption of innocence and violates the fundamental requirements of justice. Moreover, the failure to produce or rely upon evidence of an acceptable international standard raises serious doubts about the credibility and legitimacy of the proceedings.
In essence, justice is not merely about delivering a verdict; it is about ensuring that the process leading to that verdict is impartial, transparent, and consistent with recognized principles of law. A tribunal that denies the accused the right to counsel, witnesses, and credible evidence cannot claim to administer justice – it merely conducts a show trial under the guise of legality.
In other words, a criminal trial that denies the accused the right to legal defense, witness examination, and reliable evidentiary standards is inherently unfair and stands in violation of both constitutional guarantees and international norms of due process.
Six-Month Sentence Without Hearing: The Yunus Regime’s Assault on Judicial Fairness:
In a blatantly unlawful and one-sided trial, the tribunal appointed by the Yunus government sentenced Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 2nd July 2025 to six months’ imprisonment without granting her a hearing or right to defense. A contempt of court case, based on an alleged phone conversation, was filed on April 30, 2025, and within just two months’ time, without her legal representation, the tribunal delivered the verdict. This unprecedented action is portrayed as a grave violation of justice and the rule of law in Bangladesh.
The Constitutional Question: Unconstitutional Amendments Through Ordinances
Bypassing Parliamentary Procedure
One of the most serious criticisms concerns the amendments of the 1973 Act, which provide the legal basis for the current proceedings. The amendments did not follow the ordinary parliamentary process. Instead, these were promulgated through ordinances by a government whose own constitutional legitimacy remains in question.
Under Article 93 of the Constitution, the power to issue ordinances is confined to situations of urgency when Parliament is not in session. Employing this extraordinary mechanism to restructure a criminal tribunal not only exceeds constitutional boundaries but also undermines democratic stability, particularly as the law renders convicted persons ineligible to contest elections.
The Undemocratic Nature of Executive Law-Making
The 2024 and 2025 Ordinances represent an exercise in executive law-making on a matter that directly implicates fundamental rights, the separation of powers, and criminal liability. Criminal legislation—especially one that expands the jurisdiction of a special tribunal—demands the highest level of democratic scrutiny. Yet these ordinances were issued without open deliberation, public consultation, or parliamentary debate, depriving it of the procedural legitimacy ordinarily required for amendments to criminal law.
Precedent on Unconstitutional Governments
This critique gains further strength from established constitutional precedent. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh, in the 8th Amendment Case as well as the 5th and 7th Amendment Cases, held that laws enacted by regimes assuming power through extra-constitutional means can be declared unconstitutional.
The current interim government—formed by overthrowing a duly elected administration through mob violence and coordinated attacks on law enforcement and public property—lacks the democratic legitimacy required to undertake substantial restructuring of a criminal tribunal. The Court’s earlier decisions invalidating the regimes of Ziaur Rahman and H.M. Ershad underscore that democratic legitimacy is a constitutional prerequisite for valid law-making authority. By analogy, the 2024 and 2025 Ordinances stand on similarly precarious constitutional ground.
Loopholes Introduced by the Unconstitutional Amendments
Beyond questions of democratic legitimacy, the amendments introduce structural and procedural deficiencies that weaken the integrity of the tribunal process.
Reduced Procedural Protections
The amendments dilutes procedural safeguards traditionally available to defendants. Key concerns include:
- Restrictions on the right to challenge the composition of the tribunal
- Limitations on presenting defense witnesses
- Expanded powers for ex parte proceedings if the accused is deemed “non-cooperative”
- Broader admissibility of evidence without clear standards of reliability
These changes collectively tilt the tribunal in favor of the prosecution, eroding the balance essential to a fair trial.
Weak Oversight and Lack of Appeal Rights
Although the ICT technically allows appeal to the Appellate Division, the combination of condensed timelines, incomplete access to case materials, and shrinking procedural rights effectively weakens the appellate safeguard guaranteed under Article 103 of the Constitution.
Article 20C: An Unconstitutional Amendment for Political Exclusion
The illegal interim government of Yunus has unconstitutionally amended the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 through the issuance of an ordinance. In this amendment, a new clause titled Section 20C has been added. According to this provision, if a person is accused in a case before the International Crimes Tribunal and charges are framed against him, that person shall not be eligible to contest in any election or to hold any government office. Furthermore, if the person already holds an elected position, he shall no longer be permitted to continue in that position.
It appears, therefore, that the BNP-Jamaat alliance, with the assistance of Yunus, is essentially using this tribunal as a political weapon. Their objective is to keep the Awami League out of power and to use the tribunal as a tool for political persecution and suppression.
Revenge Motivation and Prosecutorial Bias
1. Composition of the Prosecution Team
The prosecution team in this case includes lawyers known for defending individuals previously accused of war crimes, many with ideological and organizational connections to Jamaat-e-Islami and its offspring new political parties. Because Sheikh Hasina’s government led the prosecution and eventually that triggered to conviction of several Jamaat leaders for war crimes during the 1971 liberation war, between 2010 and 2016, the present prosecution team is approaching the case with a retaliatory mindset
2. Questions About Impartiality
While affiliation with any political or ideological group does not automatically invalidate a prosecutor’s professional role, the perception of bias is itself damaging in a criminal proceeding, especially one involving a former Prime Minister. Legal commentators argue that where prosecutors may be seen as political or ideological adversaries of the accused, the state must take special care to ensure transparency, oversight, and procedural fairness. Such safeguards are currently lacking
3. The Appearance of Political Retaliation
The broader political context sharpens concerns. Since the ICT’s historic mission had been tied to accountability for 1971 war crimes, deploying the tribunal against a political rival of groups historically aligned with those prosecuted earlier raises questions of political motivation. The optics of the case resemble political retribution rather than neutral adjudication.
Concerns About Judicial Impartiality
-
Prior Political Activity of the Judge
The International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, which is currently trying Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, consists of three members who all share the political ideology of the BNP–Jamaat. All three were appointed after August 5 by the illegal Yunus-led government, which is backed by BNP and Jamaat, on the basis of their political affiliation.
Among them, recent media reports have revealed photographs of one of the judges, Shofiul Alam Mahmud, participating in BNP–Jamaat militant processions during the July–August movement against Sheikh Hasina. He also served as the Organizing Secretary of the Bangladesh Nationalist Lawyers’ Forum which is an affiliated organization of BNP.
2. Judicial Ethics and Independence
Judicial independence requires not only that judges are impartial, but that they appear impartial. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct emphasize that judges must avoid situations where their political affiliations could cast doubt on their neutrality. Even perceived bias threatens the integrity of the proceedings.
Very recently, the entire Nation was shocked after a video surfaced showing a conversation between the tribunal judges and the state-appointed so-called defense lawyer for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. In that video, a judge was seen rebuking the government-appointed lawyer for not demanding the death penalty for Sheikh Hasina. This clearly demonstrates that the tribunal, acting under the orders of the illegal Yunus government and its collaborators, is already prepared to deliver an unlawful and unjust death sentence against Sheikh Hasina
3. Death Penalty as a Heightened Risk
Because the ICT retains the authority to impose capital punishment, any procedural irregularity becomes even more troubling. International human rights bodies consistently stress that heightened standards apply in death-penalty cases. The current ICT structure does not meet these standards.
Concluding Remarks
More than 600 fabricated cases have been filed against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, President of the Awami League. Numerous false cases have also been initiated against members of the Bangabandhu family, including several who are serving abroad in official capacities.
Under the direction of the Yunus government, the ICT Tribunal is completing all necessary manipulations to stage a mock trial aimed at sentencing Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death. In this trial, none of the lawyers appointed by Sheikh Hasina have been permitted to represent her. No lawyer has been allowed to appear on behalf of Sheikh Hasina or other Awami League leaders.
Through threats of dismissal and mob violence, the illegal regime has brought the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, under complete control. In July, 18 judges of the lower judiciary were unconstitutionally dismissed, despite the Constitution and national laws prohibiting such actions. It can now be said without any doubt that the illegal interim government of Yunus, supported by the BNP-Jamaat alliance, has completely destroyed the independence of the judiciary without any pretense.
The illegal interim government led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus has not only undermined the independence of the judiciary through intimidation and dismissal of judges but has also crippled the justice system by filing fabricated cases against hundreds of lawyers, thereby barring them from appearing before the courts. As a result, the judicial process in Bangladesh has virtually collapsed.
