Serious legal, constitutional, and procedural lapses have raised profound concerns about the validity of the death sentence handed down to ousted Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina by the International Crimes Tribunal-Bangladesh (ICT-B).
According to sources, the proceedings were marked by constitutional violations, questionable judicial appointments, prosecutorial bias, restricted defence rights, rushed timelines, mass politically-charged cases, and an environment incompatible with a fair trial.
Fundamental Flaws In The Tribunal's Legal Basis
A Tribunal Built On An Outdated Framework
The ICT-B was created under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973, a law designed specifically to prosecute genocide and crimes committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. Its framework was never intended for events outside that historical context.
Invalid Amendments After August 5, 2024
The amendments made after 5 August 2024, through an Ordinance, are considered invalid ab-initio because the executive was not duly appointed and Parliament had not approved the changes, the President lacked constitutional authority to issue such an Ordinance under Article 93.
The dissolution of Parliament itself was procedurally improper, compromising the legitimacy of all subsequent legal actions.
Unconstitutional Appointment Of Judges
Judiciary Was Forced Into Resignations
On 10 August 2024, the Chief Justice and five Appellate Division judges were forced to resign after a student mob surrounded the Supreme Court and issued an "ultimatum."
Improper Appointments To The Tribunal
The current three ICT-B judges were appointed in violation of constitutional procedures:
• Chairman Golam Mortuza Majumder, initially a retired district judge, was made a High Court judge only six days before the ICT announced it would take up the cases.
• Mohitul Haque Mohammed Enam Chowdhury, a retired District and Sessions Judge, and
• Shafiul Alam Mahmud, a lawyer newly made a High Court judge,
were both elevated to permanent positions without the two-year probationary requirement mandated by Article 98 of the Constitution.
22 judges aligned with Jamaat-e-Islami were elevated irregularly within a year.
Lack Of Relevant Expertise
None of the ICT-B judges have prior experience with international criminal law, an essential competency in crimes against humanity trials.
Questions Of Partisanship
Shafiul Alam Mahmud's known association with the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), including his 2019 election to the Supreme Court Bar Association on a BNP slate, raises further concerns of political bias within the tribunal.
Prosecution And Defence Were Engineered For A Pre-Determined Outcome
Prosecutorial Bias And Conflicts Of Interest
The appointment of Mohammed Tajul Islam as Chief Prosecutor raised immediate concerns.
He was earlier the chief lawyer for war criminals in trials before the International Crimes and appears to have been appointed by the Jamaat-e-Islami purely for retribution.
Similarly, the appointment of Toby Cadman, who also defended Jamaat leaders in earlier war crimes trials, as Special Adviser to the Chief Prosecutor of the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal suggests a punitive political agenda.
A Rushed And Pre-Set Timeline
On 18 November 2024, despite the gravity of charges, including genocide, the ICT ordered completion of the investigation within one month, reinforcing suspicions that both charges and verdict were pre-determined.
Denial Of The Right To Counsel
Sheikh Hasina consistently stated she was denied the right to lawyers of her choice.
The state-appointed defence lawyer, Md Amir Hossain, admitted openly, "I did not attempt to (communicate with Sheikh Hasina). There is no provision allowing such an attempt... They also did not try to contact me, nor did they provide any form of assistance."
He also has no background in international criminal law.
In August 2025, senior Bangladesh Supreme Court lawyer Z.I. Khan Panna attempted to represent Hasina at the International Crimes Tribunal, but the Tribunal rejected the application during the testimony stage.
Conflict Of Interest In Defence Representation
The same state lawyer was appointed to defend both Sheikh Hasina and the former Home Minister, raising serious ethical conflicts.
Insufficient Time To Prepare
The state lawyer received the full set of prosecution evidence only on 25 June 2025, about five weeks before trial. Despite voluminous evidence, no request for additional preparation time was filed, leading legal analysts to question the seriousness of defence attorneys.
Restrictions On Cross-Examination
Prosecutors used a 2013 judgment from the Quader Mollah case to bar defence attempts to cross-examine witnesses on contradictions.
Ironically, the same prosecutors had once argued against such limitations during Jamaat trials.
During the prosecution of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders, when such an instance occurred, the defence team which included the Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam and others who are part of the prosecutors team, argued strongly against the defence.
Denial Of Appeal Rights
After the verdict, the defence lawyer stated he could not file an appeal as his clients are absconding. "If they are arrested or surrender before the tribunal, only then can an appeal be filed", he said. He also added that the Tribunal denied him access to a copy of the verdict.
Trial In Absence Of The Accused
Legal experts argue that conducting a trial without the accused present violates basic norms of justice, especially when capital punishment is awarded.
A Compressed Trial Timeline
The trial ran from 3 August to 23 October 2025, with testimony ending on 8 October, a surprisingly short duration for a case involving complex evidence, numerous witnesses, and allegations of crimes against humanity.
Specious And Politically-Charged Cases
Mass Murder And Abduction Charges Without Due Process
Since 5 August 2024, thousands of politically-linked murder and other serious cases have been filed against Awami League officials, activists, journalists, and lawyers.
These include:
• 200+ cases against Sheikh Hasina alone
• 1170+ cases naming almost 400 former ministers, Members of Parliament, and leaders
• Many cases filed against unnamed individuals and often the same people being charged in multiple cases at multiple locations on the same day
Suppression Of Free Speech
On 5 December 2024, the ICT sought to ban media dissemination of Hasina's remarks, even before trials began.
Arbitrary Arrests
Arrests were carried out without warrants or proper legal procedures.
No charges appear to have been filed against human rights violations and systematic excesses that have taken place after August 5, 2024 under the watch of the Anti-Discrimination Students Movement. Attempts appear to have been made to white-wash them under the specious plea of 'political violence'.
Meanwhile, individuals linked to Jamaat-e-Islami and extremist groups, including convicted terrorist Lutfozamaan Babar and Jashimuddin Rahmani, were released or granted bail.
Reports allege 11 custodial deaths of Awami League-affiliated individuals since August 2024.
Lack Of Forensics And Security Failures
Forensic inconsistencies were observed, including bullets not matching police weapons.
Multiple attacks on arrested Awami League leaders, accused persons and lawyers within court premises, such as on Salman Rahman and Dipu Moni, further restricted a fair trial.
Prosecutorial Statements Revealed Bias Before Trial
Before trial proceedings even began, senior officials made statements indicating Hasina's fate was already sealed.
Chief Prosecutor Mohammed Tajul Islam on 17 October 2024, said, "The court has ordered the arrest of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and to produce her in court on 18 November. Sheikh Hasina was at the helm of those who committed massacres, killings and crimes against humanity from July to August. It is a remarkable day for us."
IT Advisor Nahid Islam on 21 October 2024, said, "I want to tell everyone that Hasina will not be able to return to Bangladesh to do politics, but only to walk the gallows."
ICC Avoided Due To Inconsistencies
Despite being a State Party to the Rome Statute since 2010, the interim government did not take the case to the International Criminal Court, owing to inconsistencies in the case.
from NDTV News- Special https://ift.tt/Wcpb9ZR
via
IFTTT
