The International Crimes Tribunal’s decision to sentence former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death is one of the most consequential judgments in Bangladesh’s history.
Beyond its moral and political weight, the verdict has triggered a strict legal countdown that may define not only Hasina’s fate but the credibility of the nation’s justice system.
The tribunal, ruling on her role in the 2024 student uprising crackdown, concluded that the former prime minister authorised excessive and lethal force against protesters — findings that represent one of the strongest condemnations ever issued against a Bangladeshi head of government.
Families of the victims, many of whom lost children in the violence, see this as long-awaited recognition of state brutality.
Yet, the procedural reality that now follows is equally significant: Sheikh Hasina has exactly 30 days to appeal the verdict before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
And this is not a mere administrative deadline. Under Bangladesh’s tribunal rules, an appeal can be filed only if the convicted person appears in court and surrenders physically.
In other words, Hasina — currently in exile in India — must return to Bangladesh or be arrested within this 30-day window if she wishes to contest the ruling.
If she fails to surrender, she effectively forfeits her right to challenge the judgment.
For such a historic verdict, the combination of a death sentence and an absent defendant raises difficult questions about due process and the practical accessibility of justice.
The interim government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus maintains that the trial was fair and transparent.
Opponents argue that the proceedings — conducted without the accused present — risk deepening political divisions.
Regardless of perspective, the fact remains that justice must be not only done but seen to be done. A fair appellate opportunity is fundamental to that legitimacy.
Bangladesh is now at a crossroads. The weeks ahead must be handled with restraint and responsibility.
The country cannot afford for this verdict to be weaponzed for political gain or to incite fresh unrest.
Instead, this moment should prompt national reflection on how executive power, accountability and human rights deteriorated to the point where such violence could unfold.
The international community will watch the next 30 days with great attention.
Whether Hasina chooses to return, whether the state ensures her safety if she does, and whether the appellate process upholds the highest standards of fairness will together determine how history judges this moment.
This verdict has altered Bangladesh’s political landscape.
But the integrity of what comes next — especially the right to a fair appeal — will determine whether the nation moves toward justice and democratic renewal or toward deeper uncertainty.
