The Voice News: Dhaka, June 1, 2025 — The trial of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, which commenced today at the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Dhaka, has ignited a political firestorm. Critics across Bangladesh’s political spectrum are calling it a “kangaroo court”—a proceeding designed more for retribution than justice. Hasina, 77, stands accused of crimes against humanity for her alleged role in the brutal crackdown on the student-led uprising of July–August 2024, which, according to UN estimates, resulted in up to 1,400 deaths.
But questions about the tribunal’s impartiality have overshadowed the legal process. Concerns center on the role of Chief Prosecutor Mohammad Tajul Islam—once a defense lawyer for Jamaat-e-Islami war criminals—as well as the curious composition of Hasina’s own legal defense team, which some allege includes Jamaat sympathizers. These issues have led to growing suspicions that the trial is not about justice, but political revenge—particularly by Islamist forces long suppressed by Hasina’s government.
A Chief Prosecutor Under Scrutiny
At the heart of the controversy is Chief Prosecutor Mohammad Tajul Islam, who opened the trial by declaring, “This trial is not just revenge for the past. It is a promise for the future.” For Hasina’s supporters, the statement was laced with ominous intent. Tajul’s past raises serious ethical concerns—he previously defended Jamaat-e-Islami leaders convicted of war crimes under Hasina’s own administration, including Abdul Quader Molla and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, both executed by the ICT for atrocities during the 1971 Liberation War.
Although there is no legal barrier to his appointment, the optics are troubling. As Supreme Court lawyer Ruhul Amin noted, “There is no legal bar for him [Tajul] to be Chief Prosecutor of the ICT, but questions remain about whether he can act impartially.” Tajul resigned from the Amar Bangladesh (AB) Party—widely considered a Jamaat offshoot—just months before his appointment. Many view the resignation as a strategic move to present a veneer of neutrality.
The ICT itself, established by Hasina’s government in 2009, has long been accused—especially by Western observers and Islamist groups—of functioning as a tool of political vendetta. During Hasina’s tenure, the tribunal was responsible for convicting and executing several high-ranking Jamaat and BNP leaders. Critics now argue that the same tribunal is being used in reverse—to settle old scores against Hasina, with her former adversaries now in control.
Doubts Surround the Defense Team
Adding to the trial’s credibility crisis are allegations that Hasina’s own defense team may be compromised. According to sources within the Awami League, some of her lawyers reportedly have ties to Jamaat-e-Islami or its student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir. If true, this raises serious concerns about whether Hasina is receiving a genuine defense—or whether her legal team is influenced by political opponents intent on sabotaging her case from within.
The timing further fuels skepticism: the trial began the same day the Supreme Court lifted the ban on Jamaat’s political registration, reinstating the party that Hasina’s government outlawed in 2013. Taken together, these developments suggest not just a legal proceeding, but a calculated political maneuver aimed at rewriting the balance of power in Bangladesh.
Retribution for 1971?
Jamaat-e-Islami’s role in Bangladesh’s Liberation War remains a deep national trauma. The party’s wartime alliance with the Pakistani army and involvement in atrocities—including mass killings and rapes—led Hasina’s government to pursue decades-delayed justice through the ICT. Jamaat leaders like Quader Molla and Motiur Rahman Nizami were sentenced and executed, despite international criticism about the fairness of the trials.
Now, with Jamaat’s return to the political mainstream and Tajul Islam—once their defender—prosecuting Hasina, many view the situation as a reversal of fortune. The acquittal of Jamaat leader ATM Azharul Islam on May 27, just days before Hasina’s trial began, adds weight to accusations that the ICT has shifted froml pursuing justice to enabling revenge.
Social media has become a battleground of opinion, with posts alleging that the legal process is dominated by Jamaat operatives. One widely shared message claimed, “Yunus has orchestrated a kangaroo court to prosecute Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on unfounded genocide charges. Shockingly, the entire legal process is dominated by Jamaat-e-Islami activists—from the prosecution and defense teams to the judge himself.” While such posts lack formal evidence, they reflect a widespread perception that the tribunal has been captured by Hasina’s political enemies.
Legal and Ethical Red Flags
International legal norms, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which Bangladesh is a signatory), stress the need for impartiality in judicial proceedings. Tajul Islam’s past advocacy for individuals prosecuted by Hasina raises legitimate doubts about his neutrality. His public statements, such as the trial being a “promise for the future,” appear more political than prosecutorial, and risk undermining the very credibility of the ICT.
The decision to try Hasina in absentia—she remains in exile in India and has defied extradition orders—has further weakened perceptions of fairness. Although prosecutors claim to have compelling evidence, including video footage and testimony, critics argue that the tribunal’s controversial history and questionable personnel decisions will cast a permanent shadow over any verdict it delivers.
Awami League in the Crosshairs
The broader political context only deepens suspicions. Since coming to power earlier this year, the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus has prioritized prosecuting Awami League leaders and disbanded the party pending trial outcomes. Tajul Islam has promised swift justice, stating that all major cases will conclude within a year.
Supporters of the Awami League dismiss the charges as politically motivated, pointing out that the 2024 protests also claimed the lives of law enforcement officers and Awami activists—many of whom they say were victims of opposition-instigated violence. They argue that the trial reflects not a pursuit of justice, but a coordinated campaign to dismantle Hasina’s legacy and empower her longtime opponents, particularly Jamaat and the AB Party.
Conclusion: Justice or Political Theater?
What was intended to be a landmark trial of accountability is rapidly losing credibility. The presence of a former Jamaat defense lawyer as prosecutor, possible Jamaat-aligned lawyers in the defense, and the ICT’s own controversial history paint a picture of a legal proceeding mired in political intrigue.
Sheikh Hasina’s trial could have symbolized a commitment to justice and reconciliation in a deeply divided nation. Instead, it risks becoming a symbol of political vendetta—driven by unresolved grievances dating back to 1971 and a shifting power structure that now favors the very forces once convicted under Hasina’s watch.
As Bangladesh moves through a turbulent political transition under the interim administration, the world watches with concern. The legitimacy of its judicial process, and perhaps the future of its democracy, hangs in the balance.