The legal battle surrounding former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has entered a new and consequential phase after her international legal representatives formally challenged the legitimacy of proceedings that led to her conviction and death sentence by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT).
In a detailed 10-page letter dated March 30, 2026, submitted to the tribunal and reviewed by this publication, lawyers acting on Hasina’s behalf laid out a sweeping indictment of the judicial process, alleging systemic violations of international legal standards, political interference, and a fundamental breakdown of due process.
The document, addressed directly to the ICT in Dhaka, represents one of the most comprehensive legal objections yet raised against the tribunal’s recent actions. It also signals a likely escalation of the case into international legal forums, potentially placing Bangladesh’s justice system under renewed global scrutiny.
A Direct Challenge to the Tribunal’s Legitimacy
At the heart of the letter is a clear rejection of both the authority and conduct of the tribunal. Hasina’s legal team argues that the proceedings were “fundamentally incompatible with basic international standards for fairness and due process,” and therefore legally invalid.
The letter explicitly states that Hasina “does not accept or recognize the legitimacy of these proceedings” and reserves the right to challenge them in all available international forums.
This assertion is not merely procedural—it represents a broader critique of the current legal and political environment in Bangladesh, particularly since the change of power in August 2024. The lawyers describe a “hostile environment” toward the Awami League and its supporters, marked by political violence, arrests, and intimidation.
Allegations of a Politicized Judiciary
One of the central claims in the letter concerns the alleged lack of judicial independence within the ICT. According to the legal team, the tribunal was reconstituted shortly after the political transition, with judges who lacked relevant experience and were allegedly linked to opposition parties.
The timing of these appointments is presented as evidence of political intent. Within days of appointing 23 new High Court judges in October 2024, a new ICT bench was formed to preside over Hasina’s case.
The lawyers argue that this sequence “creates an objective appearance of bias” and undermines the credibility of the entire process.
The letter goes further, citing remarks attributed to a presiding judge during proceedings as evidence of prejudgment. In one instance, a judge reportedly told defense counsel, “You’ll try your best to save your clients from the gallows,” suggesting that conviction—and execution—was already assumed.
Such statements, the lawyers argue, violate the fundamental legal principle of presumption of innocence and raise serious concerns about impartiality.
Prosecutorial Bias and Selective Justice
The document also raises concerns about the role of the prosecution, alleging that the Chief Prosecutor maintained active ties to political groups opposed to the Awami League during the proceedings.
Particularly striking is the reference to public appearances by the prosecutor at political rallies, including one in March 2025 where he reportedly called for the banning of the Awami League while overseeing the case.
⇒Read the Full Letter to ICT on Behalf of Sheikh Hasina (PDF)
The lawyers argue that such actions compromise prosecutorial neutrality and point to a broader pattern of selective justice.
An Interior Ministry spokesperson is quoted in the letter as saying: “Students and citizens who put forth all efforts to make this uprising successful will not face prosecution… for their acts between July 15 and August 8 [2024].”
This statement is presented as evidence that legal accountability has been applied unevenly—targeting members of the former government while shielding others.
Denial of Due Process
Perhaps the most serious allegations relate to due process violations. The letter claims that Hasina was never formally notified of the charges against her, nor provided access to evidence or an opportunity to mount a defense.
It further states that she was represented by a state-appointed lawyer “with whom she has had no communication and given no instructions.”
International observers have echoed these concerns. Baroness Helena Kennedy, Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, was quoted in the letter as saying:
“It is deeply troubling to see the justice system in Bangladesh misused to advance unfair and at times, politically motivated trials.”
Similarly, Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard criticized the process, stating:
“This trial and sentence is neither fair nor just.”
These remarks were made following the tribunal’s verdict on November 17, 2025, underscoring the international dimension of the controversy.
Trial in Absentia and Death Sentence
A major point of contention is the decision to conduct the trial in absentia while simultaneously pursuing Hasina’s extradition from India.
Under international law, trials in absentia are permitted only under exceptional circumstances and must include heightened safeguards—conditions that the letter argues were not met.
The imposition of the death penalty in such circumstances has drawn particularly strong criticism. The legal team contends that executing a sentence following a flawed trial would constitute “summary execution” under international law.
Human Rights Watch has similarly warned that trials in absentia “fundamentally undermine the right to a fair trial,” especially in capital cases.
Jurisdictional Dispute
Another key argument centers on the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ICT was originally established to prosecute crimes related to the 1971 Liberation War. However, amendments introduced in 2024 expanded its mandate to include recent political events.
The lawyers argue that this expansion is both unconstitutional and a violation of international legal principles, particularly the prohibition against retroactive criminal law.
They maintain that any allegations related to events in 2024 should be handled by ordinary criminal courts, not a tribunal designed for historical war crimes.
Broader Political Context
The letter situates the legal proceedings within a broader pattern of political and social developments since the change in government.
Human rights organizations have reported widespread violence and reprisals during the transition period. According to Ain O Salish Kendra, at least 318 people were killed in the days immediately following the August 2024 upheaval. The Bangladesh Hindu, Buddhist, Christian Unity Council documented over 2,000 incidents of violence against minority communities in the following weeks.
There have also been repeated allegations of attacks on political opponents, restrictions on media access, and the politicization of state institutions.
Against this backdrop, the legal challenge mounted by Hasina’s team is likely to resonate beyond the courtroom, raising broader questions about governance, rule of law, and democratic accountability.
Demands and Next Steps
The letter concludes with a series of demands, including the immediate annulment of the verdict, a halt to any execution, and guarantees of fair trial standards in any future proceedings.
It also calls on the government to ensure the safety of lawyers and others associated with the Awami League, many of whom have reportedly faced intimidation.
Finally, the legal team has requested a formal response from the tribunal within 14 days, signaling urgency and setting the stage for potential escalation.
A Case with International Implications
As Bangladesh navigates a period of political uncertainty, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications.
The allegations outlined in the letter—if substantiated—may prompt increased scrutiny from international human rights bodies and legal institutions.
At the same time, the case highlights the challenges of balancing accountability with fairness in politically charged environments.
For now, the focus remains on the tribunal’s response—and whether the concerns raised in this unprecedented legal challenge will be addressed or further contested on the global stage.
⇒Read the Full Letter to ICT on Behalf of Sheikh Hasina (PDF)
