LONDON — A chorus of influential British jurists, former cabinet ministers, and human rights defenders has raised mounting concerns over the ongoing criminal trial of UK Labour MP Tulip Siddiq in Bangladesh, warning that the case bears the unmistakable signs of political vendetta and serious violations of due process.
The intervention comes just days before a Dhaka court is expected to deliver a verdict—one that could carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, despite Siddiq never having been formally presented with evidence, allowed legal representation, or given the opportunity to participate in her own defense.
The open letter, hand-delivered to the Bangladesh High Commission in London, was signed by some of the most respected names in British law. Among them were Cherie Blair KC, Sir Robert Buckland KC—who served as justice secretary under Boris Johnson—former attorney general Dominic Grieve, and international law experts Philippe Sands KC and Geoffrey Robertson KC. Their collective warning underscores the gravity with which the UK legal community views the proceedings.
“The criminal case against Ms Siddiq is artificial, contrived, and falls far short of the standards of fairness recognized internationally,” the letter states, noting that she “does not have a proper opportunity of defending herself.”
A Case Entangled in Bangladesh’s Volatile Politics
Siddiq’s trial began in August, months after she resigned as the UK’s City minister in the wake of allegations that she improperly received a plot of land near Dhaka through her aunt, former prime minister Sheikh Hasina.
Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission claims she benefited from “abuse of power and influence”—a charge Siddiq has consistently denied as political retaliation tied to the country’s post-Hasina political turmoil.
Her resignation from government, recommended by the UK’s ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus, followed weeks of media scrutiny. Magnus found no evidence of wrongdoing, though he noted it was “regrettable” that Siddiq had not fully considered the reputational risks of her family’s political prominence.
Yet the situation escalated dramatically after the fall of the Awami League government in August 2024, and even more so after Hasina herself was sentenced to death last week by a Bangladeshi tribunal—another verdict widely condemned as politically driven.
Siddiq, who has remained in the UK throughout, says the allegations and the trial are part of a smear campaign orchestrated under Bangladesh’s fragile interim administration led by Muhammad Yunus. UK lawyers appear to agree.
Alarming Reports of Intimidation and Procedural Breakdown
The letter’s signatories detail allegations that go far beyond a flawed case. According to them, the lawyer Siddiq appointed in Bangladesh was placed under house arrest, threatened, and ultimately forced to withdraw from representing her. Such claims, if accurate, represent a serious breakdown of rule of law.
The authors warn that the prosecution, Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission, has made repeated media comments asserting Siddiq’s guilt—effectively poisoning public discourse while denying her access to legal defense.
“These circumstances cannot be consistent with a fair and impartial trial,” they wrote, stressing that Siddiq, a UK national and sitting MP, is neither a fugitive nor unreachable, making a trial in absentia unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Their concerns echo broader reports of interference in Bangladesh’s judiciary since the interim government took power, including the arrest or pressure of lawyers defending figures related to the previous Awami League administration.
A Wider Pattern of Targeting Political Figures Linked to Hasina
Siddiq is one of dozens of individuals—many related to or associated with Sheikh Hasina—currently facing charges in Bangladesh. The cases have emerged in rapid succession following Hasina’s ouster, fueling fears that the interim government has weaponized the legal system to neutralize figures connected to the former ruling party.
The UK lawyers say the timing and circumstances of these prosecutions suggest “politically motivated reprisals.”
Their statement also implicitly challenges the interim government’s credibility on rule-of-law issues. Despite Yunus’s public emphasis on justice and institutional neutrality, international observers say the opposite has unfolded: escalating political arrests, shrinking judicial independence, and open intimidation of legal professionals.
A Verdict That Could Reverberate Across Two Countries
As Dhaka moves toward a verdict, the implications extend far beyond one politician. Siddiq, popular in her constituency and widely respected across the UK political spectrum, has faced an unprecedented situation—an elected British MP tried in absentia in a foreign court under questionable conditions.
Her supporters say a conviction could trigger diplomatic tensions and cast a long shadow over UK-Bangladesh relations, especially amid concerns over governance, rule of law, and procedural irregularities under the interim administration.
For many in Britain’s legal and political circles, the case symbolizes something larger: the erosion of democratic safeguards in Bangladesh and the targeting of individuals tied to the former government.
For now, Siddiq maintains her innocence and continues serving her constituents in Hampstead and Highgate, even as the court in Dhaka prepares its decision. Britain’s legal establishment appears unified in its belief that the process unfolding in Bangladesh is neither just nor safe.
A verdict is expected within days.
