Abdul Majid Chowdhury:
The International Crimes Tribunal is scheduled to deliver its verdict today in the case brought against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted from power following the July Uprising. She stands accused of crimes against humanity, and the proceedings are being regarded as unprecedented in the nation’s 57-year history, as it is the first time a former head of government in Bangladesh has faced such charges.
It has been recalled by legal analysts that the tribunal itself was originally established in 2010, during the Sheikh Hasina’s tenure. The creation of its legal framework, as well as the initial operational direction of the institution, had been shaped under her government. Observers frequently note that the same institution once extolled by her administration as upholding international standards is now the one overseeing her prosecution.
Concerns over the years about the tribunal’s earlier functioning were also referenced. According to accounts provided by British lawyer Toby Cadman, numerous flaws had been pointed out during the Hasina-era trials, including allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Cadman, who has long been familiar with the tribunal’s history, has been serving as Special Adviser to the Chief Prosecutor during the current proceedings.
He indicated that substantial amendments had since been introduced to the tribunal’s procedures. These reforms, it was stated, were intended to address structural shortcomings and bring the process more in line with international norms of fairness and transparency.
It has been emphasised that only the tribunal judges can ultimately determine whether the prosecution’s evidence meets the required threshold for conviction. According to Cadman’s remarks, it would be their responsibility to assess whether the proceedings have adhered to standards of due process and whether the trial has been conducted impartially.
Assertions made in some quarters that Sheikh Hasina had been deprived of legal representation were categorically dismissed. It was clarified that her decision to remain in self-imposed exile in India, along with repeated refusals to comply with tribunal summonses, had necessitated the appointment of a state counsel. This appointment, it was explained, was intended to safeguard her legal interests in absentia. The appointed counsel—described as an experienced advocate—had been granted full access to case materials, with the ability to examine witnesses, contest evidence and make legal submissions. It was further noted that the adequacy of this representation would be evaluated by the judges themselves as part of their overall assessment of fairness.
Cadman refrained from commenting on specific evidence, including testimony provided by the former Inspector General of Police, stating that no observation should be made while the proceedings remained ongoing and before the judgment was announced. According to him, the strength of the former IGP’s testimony would be judged solely by the tribunal. The prosecution maintained that the evidence against the co-accused was compelling.
A clear distinction was drawn between the trials previously held under Hasina’s government and those taking place now under a reformed legal framework and an independent judicial environment. The death sentences carried out under the former regime had been widely criticised internationally, with several global organisations describing them as unlawful and arbitrary. Under existing law, the maximum penalty that could be imposed remains the death sentence. Cadman stated that it would be the tribunal’s responsibility to consider whether such a sentence would be warranted based on the evidence and the degree of responsibility attributed to each accused.
On the matter of extradition, Cadman pointed out that India had shown no indication that it would extradite Sheikh Hasina, irrespective of the verdict or potential sentence. If she were to travel outside India, the possibility of arrest in a third country would depend on the laws and extradition policies of that particular state, especially concerning individuals facing death-penalty exposure.
The broader historical context was also addressed. While the trial has been described as unprecedented within Bangladesh, Cadman stressed that the prosecution of former heads of state is consistent with international practice. References were made to trials of leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Miloševic, as well as proceedings in countries including Sudan and Myanmar. These examples were cited to argue that accountability for grave crimes should extend beyond political status or national borders. The case being tried in Dhaka, he suggested, aligns with a global principle that impunity must not be tolerated.
Regarding the multitude of allegations associated with Sheikh Hasina’s previous rule—ranging from enforced disappearances to corruption and political oppression—it was emphasised that she is not currently being charged on those issues, and therefore speculation should not be entertained. The judges, it was reiterated, would decide solely on the charges formally presented and the evidence admitted.
When asked how the verdict may be viewed, Cadman stated that the reaction of the Bangladeshi people would be more consequential than international commentary. While foreign governments and organisations may evaluate the fairness of the process after the verdict, public acceptance within Bangladesh itself would be crucial. He declined to offer a personal assessment ahead of the final judgment.
Cadman confirmed that, in his advisory role, he had presented several recommendations to the Interim Government regarding legal reforms, some of which had been adopted. Among these recommendations was a proposal to change the name of the tribunal to symbolically distance it from past controversies. He noted, however, that the name of the institution had no bearing on the fairness of the current proceedings.
Reflecting on his past criticisms, Cadman reiterated that the trials held under the previous Awami League government—when he served as defence counsel—were marked by what he described as fundamental breaches of justice. He referred to documented incidents such as judges allegedly receiving instructions from government figures, the “Skypegate” episode, restrictions on defence witnesses and foreign counsel, and reported interference in testimony. Those past practices, he argued, constituted a serious perversion of the judicial process. By contrast, he suggested, criticisms voiced today by supporters of the former prime minister do not approach the gravity of earlier violations.
The forthcoming verdict, therefore, has been framed as a defining moment for Bangladesh’s justice system. Regardless of the outcome, the trial has already been viewed as setting an important precedent—that no political leader, regardless of past office or influence, should be considered beyond the reach of law.
(The writer is a Dhaka-based journalist)
