The recent trial and subsequent death sentence handed down to former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has sparked widespread international concern, with critics arguing that the process was fundamentally compromised and failed to meet basic standards of fairness, credibility, and justice. The trial, which followed the violent political upheaval of July 2024, has been condemned by human rights organizations and experts as a politically motivated legal procedure.
A Politically Driven Legal Process
From the outset, the trial was marred by allegations of political interference. Key figures involved in the prosecution, including the judges, prosecutor, and witnesses, are all seen as politically aligned with the opposition that assumed power after the 2024 uprising. This raises serious questions about impartiality and fairness.
“The legitimacy of a trial collapses when those responsible for its process are politically invested in the outcome,” said an international legal expert. In this case, individuals who had long been opponents of Sheikh Hasina and stood to gain from her removal were in charge of every phase of the judicial process, including investigation, prosecution, and testimony. As a result, the trial lacked the impartiality that is essential to any democratic legal system.
A Court Lacking Independence
International human rights groups, including Amnesty International and the United Nations, have long criticized the tribunal handling Sheikh Hasina’s case for its lack of judicial independence and history of politically influenced rulings. In fact, the court had been described as a “tool of political vendettas” rather than a body committed to justice.
“By placing Sheikh Hasina’s fate in a court controlled by her political adversaries, the entire judicial process became inherently biased,” stated a spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Trial in Absentia: A Procedural Flaw
One of the most troubling aspects of the trial was that Sheikh Hasina was tried in absentia—without being physically present in court. She was denied the basic rights to:
- Present her defense,
- Cross-examine witnesses,
- Challenge potentially fabricated or politically motivated evidence,
- Ensure due process.
Such trials are already a violation of international law, but when compounded by partisan prosecutors, biased judges, and politically motivated witnesses, the trial becomes even more questionable. Critics argue that the trial of Sheikh Hasina was not about justice, but rather about political retribution.
Weaponizing the Legal System for Political Revenge
Numerous individuals involved in the trial, including key witnesses, were active members of the political opposition. Many were direct beneficiaries of the regime that replaced Hasina’s government after the July 2024 unrest. One particularly controversial moment occurred when Sheikh Hasina’s appointed defense attorney was recorded in a video expressing support for her death sentence.
This conflict of interest is a glaring violation of fair trial principles, according to legal experts. “No justice system can claim legitimacy when those who stand to gain politically are in charge of determining the fate of their opponent,” noted a prominent human rights lawyer.
Violating International Human Rights Norms
The United Nations has expressed grave concern about the fairness of the trial, including its use of a politically controlled court, the conduct of the trial in absentia, and the imposition of a death sentence. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has made it clear that capital punishment is unacceptable, especially when the judicial process fails to meet basic standards of fairness and impartiality.
“Capital punishment should never be imposed in such circumstances,” the UN High Commissioner stated in a press release, citing the trial’s lack of transparency and fairness.
The Call for Truth and Justice
Despite the political nature of the trial, the true victims of the July 2024 unrest are those who continue to demand justice, truth, and accountability. Legal experts and human rights organizations assert that justice must be impartial, transparent, and based on the rule of law—not driven by political rivalry.
The trial of Sheikh Hasina has deepened political divisions within Bangladesh, eroded public trust in the judicial system, and demonstrated how the legal process can be weaponized for political gain.
A Call for International Oversight
As Bangladesh grapples with the fallout from the trial, calls for international oversight and an independent review of the proceedings have grown louder. Human rights groups are urging the international community to step in to ensure that due process is upheld and that politically motivated prosecutions are prevented.
“Bangladesh must commit to restoring the rule of law and ensuring that the judiciary is free from political influence,” said a spokesperson for Amnesty International. “Only through genuine accountability and transparent legal processes can the country hope to move forward.”
Sheikh Hasina Deserves a Fair Trial
For many, the trial of Sheikh Hasina is not about her political legacy but about ensuring a fair and transparent legal process. Having served as Prime Minister for over 15 years, Hasina is entitled to a trial that adheres to international standards of justice, not one shaped by her political enemies.
The future of Bangladesh rests on its ability to restore a justice system free from political manipulation, one that upholds the rule of law for all.
Writer: Professor Dr. A K Abdul Momen, Former Foreign Minister and Bangladesh Permanent Representative to the UN
