Image: Oli Scarff/Getty Images
A special court in Bangladesh has sentenced a former prime minister to death. The International Crimes Tribunal found Sheikh Hasina, the country’s leader for 15 years, guilty of crimes against humanity for ordering a violent crackdown on student protesters. The verdict, delivered in her absence, concludes a stunning fall from grace. Ms Hasina fled to India last year after an uprising toppled her government, a convulsion that a UN report estimates cost 1,400 lives. An interim administration now runs the country. But the judgment threatens to deepen national divisions and raises hard questions about justice and political vengeance.
The tribunal’s chief prosecutor argued that Ms Hasina incited her party and authorised the elimination of protesters. The court agreed, imposing a death sentence for the most serious charge and life imprisonment on two others. The government presents this as a necessary act of accountability for a bloody chapter. Security was tightened before the announcement, with army and police units cordoning off the court. This was a prudent measure. In recent weeks, crude bombs have exploded near the airport and buses have been set ablaze. The authorities have detained activists from Ms Hasina’s party, the Awami League, alleging their involvement in the violence.
Yet the process invites scepticism. Ms Hasina was tried in absentia, having already found refuge abroad. She dismisses the tribunal as a “rigged” and politically motivated exercise. Human-rights groups, while advocating investigations into the crackdown, have cautioned against the use of capital punishment. They worry it undermines the judicial process’s credibility. The court’s timing is also conspicuous. The Awami League was banned from politics in May. A general election is scheduled for next year. The verdict ensures that the party’s towering figure, even in exile, remains a fugitive from the state.
The interim government of Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate, now faces a complicated geopolitical problem. It has requested India to extradite Ms Hasina, but New Delhi has not responded. India has long been a regional ally of Bangladesh and a patron of the Awami League. Complying with the request would strain that relationship and set a precedent for handling exiled leaders. Refusing would undermine the tribunal’s authority and anger the current administration in Dhaka. Other foreign governments are watching closely. They need to weigh Bangladesh’s stability against fears of a politicised judicial process.
For Bangladesh, the verdict exacerbates a long-standing cycle of recrimination. The country’s politics have for decades been a bitter feud between two dynasties: the Awami League of Ms Hasina and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party of her rival, Khaleda Zia, who is herself in poor health and facing legal troubles. This winner-takes-all conflict has repeatedly seen former leaders investigated and jailed after losing power. The judicial system becomes a political battleground. The danger is that each rotation of power legitimises the use of state institutions to punish opponents, rather than to uphold impartial law.
The ultimate effect may be to entrench the Awami League’s persecution narrative. With its leader condemned and its organisation banned, the party could fracture or radicalise. Some supporters may abandon politics in despair. Others might conclude that peaceful opposition is futile, turning to more disruptive methods. The interim government’s challenge is to prove that this prosecution is part of a genuine reconciliation, not the opening move in a new era of repression. True justice means punishing the wrongs of the past as well as protecting the political rights of the future. Bangladesh has chosen only the former. ■