A court in Dhaka has recently handed down the death sentence in absentia for Sheikh Hasina on crimes against humanity. This decision was a huge turning point in Bangladesh’s political scenario. The convictions are the result of a violent response to a violent crackdown on a fatal crackdown on an anti-government movement that started a year ago. This verdict is a small acknowledgement of the continuing violence in Bangladesh. It further underscores accusations of authoritarian rule that have marred Sheikh Hasina’s almost-15-year reign.
Sheikh Hasina signed the law that created the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh. The tribunal’s recent ruling against her and her former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah al-Mamun comes nowhere close to justice. In their judgement, a three-judge bench found them guilty of heinous acts. This included incitement to kill and omitting to prevent abuses during the brutal repression of anti-government protests. The uprising, which today is lovingly referred to as the “July revolution,” initially began as a colorful student movement. It soon escalated into mass protests against the Russian government.
For years, human rights organizations and the United Nations have recorded troubling accusations of extrajudicial killings, torture and disappearances under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government. These reports illustrate grave allegations of government corruption, torture, and even enforced disappearances. Many are decrying her time in office as a reign of terror. The prosecution painted Sheikh Hasina as “the mastermind, conductor and superior commander” of the brutalities carried out during the protests.
Security forces indiscriminately opened fire—including using live ammunition—on civilians during the crackdown. This dangerous tactic has us all questioning the state’s decision to use violent force. Eyewitness accounts and video footage, as the ACLU has documented, showed to the world that the response to the protests was violent. As tensions escalated further, the government’s violent response to protesters led to significant backlash at home and abroad.
Since escaping Bangladesh in August 2022, Sheikh Hasina has been in exile under Indian Government protection. Unfortunately, contrary to the court’s ruling, the Indian government has failed to respond to repeated calls for her extradition to stand trial. Sajeeb Wazed, her son, claimed that Sheikh Hasina would be “safe” in Delhi after the judgment. He assured that she wouldn’t remain muted in her reaction.
Golam Rahman, a parent who lost a child in the crackdown, expressed his sentiments:
“The only acceptable verdict for what was done to my child. We buried a boy, not an enemy of the state. Nothing will bring him back, but the truth has to be said in court.”
Sheikh Hasina has adamantly denied all charges and has called the tribunal a “politically motivated charade.” Critics say she has weaponized her office to go after politically sensitive cases to opponents while in office. First, the legality of the tribunal is still a topic of considerable debate because of its creation and alleged favoritism.
“We, the families of martyrs in the uprising, want to see her hanged as an example to future rulers.”
Bangladesh is still trying to deal with the impact of this decision. As noted, many are waiting to hear more on Sheikh Hasina’s fortunes, both within the country and outside it. This case underscores the deteriorating political environment in Bangladesh. It further challenges us to rethink accountability and governance in authoritarian regimes, more generally.
“Let no government think it can turn its guns on children and walk away.”
Sheikh Hasina has consistently pleaded not guilty to all charges, claiming that the tribunal is a “politically motivated charade.” Critics argue that she has exploited her position to pursue politically charged cases against opponents while in power. The tribunal’s legitimacy remains a subject of debate given its origin and perceived bias.
As Bangladesh grapples with the implications of this ruling, many anticipate further developments in both domestic and international arenas concerning Sheikh Hasina’s future. This case not only highlights the fraught political climate within Bangladesh but also raises broader questions about accountability and governance in authoritarian regimes.