Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina faces a death sentence following a controversial ruling by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). This development has sparked widespread debate, with questions arising about the legitimacy of the verdict and its political implications. Compounding the situation is Hasina’s reported presence in India, prompting urgent discussions about India’s extradition obligations.
The ICT handed down the death sentence in connection with the violent 2024 student movement. What began as a protest against job quotas evolved into a nationwide uprising against the Hasina government, resulting in fatalities among students, protesters, and law enforcement. The tribunal has attributed responsibility for these deaths to Hasina.
Specific charges against the former prime minister include ordering killings, making speeches that incited violence, obstructing justice, attempting to conceal evidence, and orchestrating the death of student Abu Sayeed and the killing and burning of five individuals. The death penalty was imposed for inciting violence and ordering killings, with a life sentence for obstruction of justice.
Hasina has been granted 30 days to appeal the ruling, but a strict condition requires her to be physically present in Bangladesh, making an appeal from abroad impossible. She has vehemently described the verdict as “wrong, biased, and politically motivated,” highlighting a perceived lack of due process and the tribunal’s operation under an unelected government. Hasina has also indicated a willingness to seek recourse at the International Criminal Court.
Bangladesh’s interim government has officially requested Hasina’s extradition from India, referencing the bilateral extradition treaty signed in 2013. However, the treaty’s terms include provisions for refusing extradition in cases involving political offenses. As Hasina contends that the charges are politically motivated, India may not be legally bound to extradite her.
The integrity of the ICT has also come under intense scrutiny. Originally established by Hasina’s administration for 1971 war crimes, its mandate was recently expanded by the interim government to include recent events. The appointment of judges and prosecutors by the interim administration has led to criticisms of bias and accusations of the tribunal functioning as a “kangaroo court.”
The ruling has triggered significant protests and clashes in Bangladesh, raising concerns about the country’s political stability. India’s position, balancing its bilateral relationship, treaty obligations, and regional security concerns, is under intense international focus as this complex situation develops.