The Catholic Church in Bangladesh has delivered one of the strongest institutional rebukes yet to the interim government’s decision to sentence former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death, calling the verdict “one-sided,” “politically motivated,” and a stark reminder of the erosion of due process under the current authority.
On November 17, Bishop Ponen Paul Kubi, CSC—secretary of the Bangladesh Catholic Bishops’ Conference and head of the Mymensingh Diocese—condemned the International Crimes Tribunal-1 ruling sentencing Hasina and former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death in absentia.
His remarks added powerful moral weight to what many observers have already described as a political show trial conducted by a government that came to power without electoral legitimacy.
Church Calls Verdict “Primitive Justice, Not Civilization”
Speaking just hours after the judgment, Bishop Kubi warned that the tribunal’s proceedings signaled a troubling return to “the primitive era,” where political power, not justice, determines the fate of the accused.
He identified three fundamental flaws:
• the accused were denied meaningful legal defense,
• the verdict was unilateral and politically driven,
• and the Catholic Church rejects capital punishment in principle.
“The Catholic Church has never supported the death penalty,” he said. “Even if Sheikh Hasina committed wrongdoing, punishment must be remedial, not vengeful. Justice requires fairness—not political force.”
For many within the Awami League, the bishop’s words validate long-standing concerns: the trial was orchestrated to punish political opponents, not to achieve accountability. When an institution known for moral restraint publicly denounces a verdict, it reinforces the perception that the process lacks legitimacy at its core.
A Tribunal Under Question
The ICT-1 found Hasina—now 78 and living in exile in India—guilty of crimes against humanity linked to the July–August 2024 unrest. The tribunal claims she authorized the use of drones, helicopters and lethal force, and failed to prevent mass casualties. But critics note that the trial was expedited, opaque and conducted under a military-backed interim administration accused of widespread rights abuses, media censorship and political retaliation.
Within the Awami League, the fundamental questions remain:
How can a tribunal formed by an unelected government claim democratic legitimacy?
Who benefits from executing a former prime minister and central figure of the Liberation-era legacy?
How can any verdict be credible when the accused is denied basic due-process rights?
The Broader Political Context
The August 5 ouster of Sheikh Hasina followed student protests over job quotas that rapidly spiraled into a nationwide upheaval. A later UN inquiry cited at least 1,400 deaths, though Awami League activists and independent observers insist most of these killings occurred after August 5—carried out by groups aligned with Muhammad Yunus amid the chaotic power shift. They argue the interim government and its allies inflated or misattributed casualties to justify their takeover and retroactively blame Hasina.
In the immediate days after the regime change, violent Islamist factions and pro-Yunus mobs reportedly launched door-to-door raids targeting Awami League leaders, activists, their families, and religious minorities. Hundreds were killed; homes and businesses were burned and looted. Yet the UN inquiry ultimately assigned these atrocities to Hasina—a conclusion Awami League leaders describe as biased, manipulated and influenced by Yunus and powerful international interests.
According to the Awami League, the demonstrators did far more than clash with security forces. They hunted ruling-party supporters, assassinated several local leaders, and attacked key government installations—including an estimated 500 police stations—killing what the party claims were over two thousand police personnel. The Yunus administration officially acknowledged only 44 police deaths, a figure critics say was deliberately minimized.
Post–August 5 Abuses
In the months since, rights groups and independent monitors have documented abuses that many believe surpass even the worst allegations against the Hasina government in 2024. These include:
• hundreds of civilian deaths within the first week of the takeover,
• systematic attacks on minorities,
• persecution of journalists, academics, and pro-Awami individuals,
• mass arrests,
• and a coordinated campaign to dismantle Awami League structures nationwide.
The interim government’s impunity order—shielding its supporters from prosecution—has deepened concerns about selective justice and state-sanctioned lawlessness.
Polarized Reactions Across the Nation
After the verdict, supporters of the interim government held celebration rallies, calling the ruling a “Victory Day for the July Uprising.” Awami League supporters—despite the party’s ban—held scattered protests condemning the decision as “judicial assassination.”
The Church’s intervention, however, shifted the moral landscape. Historically reluctant to engage in partisan politics, its decision to openly criticize the verdict signals broader unease across civil society and raises ethical questions the interim regime has yet to answer.
Extradition Pressure and an Election Ahead
The interim administration has asked India to extradite Hasina so she can be executed under the tribunal’s judgment. Analysts widely believe New Delhi will hesitate to hand over a democratically elected leader to an unelected regime facing mounting legitimacy challenges.
With national elections expected in February, the verdict—combined with the Church’s criticism—may significantly shape the political environment, fueling domestic and international calls for a return to democratic norms and an end to politicized justice.
A Moral Reckoning
For the Awami League and many neutral observers, the Church’s statement underscores a deeper truth: Bangladesh is witnessing judicial retribution disguised as accountability. When a respected religious institution invokes civilization, morality and restraint—while an interim authority champions death sentences—the contrast is impossible to ignore.
By denouncing the verdict, the Catholic Church has positioned itself on the side of due process, human dignity and the rule of law. In doing so, it has exposed what many view as a profound moral failure within a tribunal designed not to deliver justice, but to extinguish a political legacy.
