The Trial of Sheikh Hasina: A Landmark Case in Bangladesh’s Transitional Justice Journey

“শেখ হাসিনা বিচার” – from uprising to verdict

Introduction

In November 2025, Bangladesh witnessed what many legal observers described as a seismic moment in its judicial and political history. The three-judge panel of the International Crimes Tribunal-1 (ICT-1) in Dhaka found former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (শেখ হাসিনা) guilty of crimes against humanity for her government’s role in the violent crackdown on a student-led protest movement in 2024. She was sentenced to death in absentia – a verdict unprecedented in Bangladesh’s record of post-independence accountability.

This article examines the who, what, when, where, how and why of the case: the background of Sheikh Hasina’s rule, the events of the uprising, the legal framework and charges, the tribunal proceedings, the verdict and sentencing, the aftermath (both domestic and international), and the key questions of fair trial and rule of law. For readers of LegalServiceIndia.com, this is not merely political drama but a detailed legal milestone with far-reaching implications for transitional justice in South Asia.

1. Background: Sheikh Hasina, Her Rule and the 2024 Uprising

1.1 Sheikh Hasina’s Political Profile

Sheikh Hasina was born on 28 September 1947 at Tungipara, Gopalganj. She is the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমান). She has served as Prime Minister for multiple terms: 1996–2001 and 2009–2024. Her party, the Awami League, has dominated Bangladesh’s political landscape for decades.

Under her leadership, Bangladesh recorded significant economic growth, infrastructure expansion, and a rising international profile. However, her later years in office were marked by increasing allegations of authoritarian rule, enforced disappearances, custodial torture, media restrictions and suppression of political opposition. Critics described her governance as increasingly “majoritarian and intolerant of dissent”, while supporters portrayed her as the guarantor of stability and development.

1.2 The 2024 Student-Led Uprising (ছাত্র আন্দোলন)

In mid-2024, a wave of student protests erupted across Bangladesh. Initially triggered by grievances over a government job-quota policy, the movement quickly expanded into a broad-based agitation against perceived injustice, corruption and authoritarianism. What began as student demands for reform of civil-service quotas soon transformed into nationwide demonstrations calling for accountability and democratic reform.

The government responded with a heavy hand. Security forces, backed by paramilitary and intelligence units, launched a severe crackdown on demonstrators. Independent reports estimated that hundreds to possibly over a thousand people were killed, with thousands more injured or detained. For many in Bangladesh, this period is remembered as a time when the state turned its machinery against its own citizens – “রাষ্ট্র নিজেই নাগরিকের বিরুদ্ধে দাঁড়িয়েছে”.

1.3 Collapse of the Hasina Government and Interim Administration

By late July and early August 2024, the protests and political turmoil had reached a breaking point. Demonstrators stormed and occupied key government installations. Sheikh Hasina’s government effectively collapsed on 5 August 2024. She fled the country and took refuge in India. An interim government was installed under the leadership of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, with a declared mandate of restoring order, reforming institutions, and ensuring accountability for the violence.

From a legal perspective, the change of regime set the stage for a new phase of transitional justice – an attempt to hold former rulers accountable for grave human rights violations during their tenure.

2. From Uprising to Indictment: How the Case Was Built

2.1 Reconstitution of the International Crimes Tribunal-1

The International Crimes Tribunal-1 (ICT-1) was originally constituted under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 to prosecute atrocities committed during the 1971 Liberation War. Under the interim government, this tribunal was re-activated and its remit broadened to address the alleged crimes against humanity committed during the 2024 crackdown.

This re-purposing was controversial, but the interim administration argued that the ICT-1 offered an existing legal framework and institutional infrastructure capable of handling complex mass-atrocity cases. Critics, however, questioned whether a tribunal originally aimed at 1971 war crimes should try contemporary political violence.

2.2 Investigations and Evidence Gathering

A special investigation team (SIT) was formed to collect and assess evidence related to the crackdown. The SIT gathered:

• Police, paramilitary and military deployment records
• Drone logs and aviation data for helicopters used during protests
• Hospital and morgue records reflecting bullet wounds and trauma injuries
• Testimony from survivors, families of deceased protesters and medical personnel
• Internal communications and command orders, where available
• Leaked audio recordings allegedly featuring Sheikh Hasina issuing harsh directives

One key element was a leaked audio recording in which a voice attributed to Sheikh Hasina claimed to have a “license to kill” and mentioned a specific number of people. This recording, after forensic analysis, became central to both a separate contempt of court proceeding and the main crimes-against-humanity case.

2.3 Formal Indictment and Charges

On 10 July 2025, the ICT-1 formally indicted Sheikh Hasina, former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan, and former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun. The indictment was framed in five broad counts:

• Abetment and incitement of mass killings and violent attacks on civilians
• Conspiracy to deploy disproportionate lethal force against unarmed protesters
• Planning and orchestration of a coordinated, systematic attack on a civilian population
• Facilitation and support to security forces engaged in crimes against humanity
• Failure to prevent or punish crimes committed by subordinates despite knowledge or constructive knowledge

Because Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Khan remained outside the territorial jurisdiction of Bangladesh, the tribunal decided to try them in absentia. Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, however, was in custody and later chose to plead guilty and testify as a state witness.

3. Legal Framework and Parties Involved

3.1 International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973

The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (ICTA) provides the statutory basis for ICT-1. Key features include:

• Jurisdiction over crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
• Provisions for individual criminal responsibility
• Ability to try persons in their absence under specified conditions
• Broad evidentiary rules compared to ordinary criminal courts

Although initially conceived for 1971 atrocities, the Act’s language on crimes against humanity and command responsibility was invoked to address the 2024 crackdown as a large-scale, systematic attack on civilians.

3.2 The Accused and Their Roles

• Sheikh Hasina – Former Prime Minister, head of government, principal accused. Alleged to have ordered or authorised the use of lethal force and to have maintained effective control over those who carried out the crackdown.
• Asaduzzaman Khan – Former Home Minister, alleged to have directly supervised internal security forces and implemented policies resulting in crimes against humanity.
• Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun – Former Inspector General of Police, alleged to have coordinated operational deployment of police units during the protests. Later became a রাজ্যের সাক্ষী (state witness), pleaded guilty and expressed remorse.

3.3 Tribunal Bench, Prosecution and Defence

The bench was composed of three judges, headed by Justice Golam Mortuza Mozumder. The State’s case was led by Chief Prosecutor Mohammad Tajul Islam. The defendants being abroad, the court appointed counsel to represent them, a step that has become one of the focal points in debates about fairness of the trial.

Despite court-appointed representation, many critics argue that a trial in absentia can never fully match the guarantees of a trial where the accused can directly instruct counsel, confront witnesses and participate in their defence. This tension between accountability and due process runs through the entire case.

4. The Charges – Crimes Against Humanity and Command Responsibility

4.1 Nature of Crimes Against Humanity Alleged

The prosecution’s theory was that the 2024 crackdown was not a random or isolated response but a “widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population” – the classic definition of crimes against humanity. The alleged pattern included:

• Unlawful killings and use of lethal force against unarmed protesters
• Enforced disappearances of activists and student leaders
• Widespread torture and inhuman treatment of detainees
• Obstruction of medical treatment and denial of emergency care

4.2 Specific Incidents and Locations Highlighted

The indictment and subsequent trial evidence referred to several emblematic incidents:

• Chankharpul, Dhaka – Multiple killings allegedly followed by removal and burning of bodies to destroy evidence.
• Ashulia (Savar) and surrounding industrial areas – Joint police-paramilitary actions where protesters were reportedly shot and some corpses incinerated.
• University campuses and hostels – Targeted raids on student leaders seen as organisers of the movement.
• Use of drones and helicopters – Alleged weaponisation of aerial platforms against crowds, unprecedented in domestic crowd-control operations.

4.3 Command Responsibility – Linking Leadership to On-Ground Atrocities

Under well-recognised principles of international criminal law, a superior can be held criminally responsible for crimes committed by subordinates when:

1. The superior had effective command or authority over the subordinates;
2. The superior knew or had reason to know the crimes were being committed or about to be committed; and
3. The superior failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the crimes or to punish perpetrators.

The prosecution argued that Sheikh Hasina, as Prime Minister and head of government, retained effective control over the security apparatus. Her alleged orders, public speeches, private communications and silence in the face of clear atrocities formed the basis of the command responsibility charge. In Bangla, many analysts described this as a case of “শীর্ষ নেতৃত্বের দায়” – the responsibility of the top leadership.

5. The Trial: Phase-by-Phase Narrative

5.1 Commencement of Trial and Basic Procedure

The formal trial commenced in mid-2025. ICT-1 declared that the case involved a coordinated and systematic assault on unarmed civilians. Because Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Khan were outside the country, the tribunal carried out trial in absentia, appointing defence counsel and ensuring public notice, as required by the ICTA.

Notably, the tribunal allowed live telecast of the proceedings, turning the courtroom into a national stage of sorts. For many Bangladeshis watching on television or online, it was a unique experience – “বিচার ঘরে যা হচ্ছে, তা পুরো দেশ দেখছে”.

5.2 Pre-Trial Motions and Objections

Defence counsel raised several preliminary objections:

• Alleged lack of jurisdiction to apply ICTA to contemporary events rather than 1971 war crimes
• Concerns about political influence over the tribunal
• Challenges to the admissibility of certain digital evidence including leaked audio

The tribunal dismissed these objections, holding that the statutory language of ICTA was wide enough to include crimes against humanity committed in 2024 and that the tribunal retained independence despite political turbulence.

5.3 Prosecution’s Case: Witnesses and Documents

5.3.1 Opening Statement of the Chief Prosecutor

In an extensive opening, the Chief Prosecutor set out 11 core incidents to demonstrate the “widespread and systematic” nature of the attack. He argued that Hasina’s government treated a political crisis as a military conflict and deployed deadly force accordingly, in violation of both domestic and international standards.

5.3.2 Survivor Testimony and Eyewitness Accounts

Several survivors took the stand and delivered emotional testimony:

• A teenager, shot in the face at Jatrabari, described how security forces opened fire without warning and later threatened hospital staff.
• Families recounted how their children left home to join protests and never returned; in some cases, bodies were found later, in others they remain “missing” – নিখোঁজ.
• Medical workers described instructions from higher authorities to restrict admission of injured protesters and to avoid recording gunshot details in hospital registers.

5.3.3 Testimony of Former IGP Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun

After entering a guilty plea, former IGP Al-Mamun was accepted as a state witness. He testified on:

• High-level meetings where strategy against protesters was discussed
• Direct and indirect instructions from political leadership
• The chain of command by which orders flowed to field-level units

His testimony was central in linking decisions taken at the apex of government to actions on the streets and campuses.

5.3.4 Leaked Audio and Contempt of Court

A separate but related proceeding involved a leaked audio recording in which a voice, attributed to Sheikh Hasina, spoke of having a “license to kill” a specific number of people. The tribunal held that the audio, together with other statements, showed disrespect towards the court and its processes. In July 2025, ICT-1 convicted her of contempt of court in absentia and imposed a six-month sentence.

This contempt conviction, though distinct from the crimes-against-humanity charges, reinforced the prosecution’s narrative of a leader contemptuous of legal restraints and fundamental rights.

5.4 Defence Strategy and Critiques

The defence, constrained by the absence of the main accused, focused on:

• Arguing that the trial was driven by political vendetta – “রাজনৈতিক প্রতিহিংসা মূলক বিচার”.
• Challenging the forensic reliability of digital evidence like audio files and drone logs.
• Asserting that the crackdown was a legitimate law-and-order response to violent unrest, not a predetermined campaign against civilians.

Statements issued in Hasina’s name from abroad denounced the tribunal as illegitimate and portrayed her as a victim of “show trial” politics.

5.5 Public and Media Reaction During the Trial

The televised proceedings turned the trial into a national spectacle. Families of victims and student groups frequently gathered outside the courthouse, holding placards stating “ন্যায্য বিচার চাই” (we want fair justice). Awami League supporters, in contrast, raised slogans defending Hasina and accusing the interim government of using the tribunal to eliminate a rival.

The Bangladeshi and international media extensively covered the case, debating whether it signalled a new era of accountability or a dangerous precedent of politicised justice.

6. Verdict and Sentencing (November 2025)

6.1 Findings of Guilt

In its detailed judgment delivered in November 2025, ICT-1 concluded that:

• The crackdown on the 2024 uprising formed a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population.
• Sheikh Hasina had effective control over the security forces and was found to have incited, abetted, and ordered the use of extreme force.
• Asaduzzaman Khan, as Home Minister, played a pivotal role in implementing these policies on the ground.
• Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, while culpable, had cooperated and provided crucial evidence, warranting a comparatively lighter sentence.

6.2 Sentences Imposed

The sentencing portion of the judgment provided:

• Sheikh Hasina – Death sentence, to be carried out in accordance with Bangladeshi law.
• Asaduzzaman Khan – Death sentence.
• Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun – Five years’ imprisonment, in recognition of his cooperation, expression of remorse, and assistance in establishing the truth.

The tribunal also ordered measures aimed at victim compensation and reparations, including directives for the interim government to create a dedicated fund for families of those killed or permanently disabled.

6.3 Legal Next Steps and Enforceability of the Verdict

While the tribunal’s decision is decisive within Bangladesh’s legal framework, several practical and legal questions remain:

• How and when the death sentences can be implemented for accused residing outside Bangladesh.
• Whether appeals or review petitions might be filed, and by whom, in the context of a banned political party.
• The implications of any future political settlement or amnesty process.

From a pure legal-doctrinal perspective, the judgment stands as a comprehensive application of crimes against humanity and command responsibility doctrines within a domestic tribunal.

7. Immediate Aftermath Within Bangladesh

7.1 Public Reaction and Street Protests

The verdict sparked a mixture of jubilation, shock and anger:

• Families of victims and student groups celebrated the decision as long-awaited justice – “বিচার হয়েছে, ইতিহাস তৈরি হয়েছে”.
• Supporters of the Awami League described the judgment as a “judicial assassination” of their leader and organised protests and shutdowns (হরতাল).
• In some places, clashes erupted between rival groups and security forces, leading to further casualties and arrests.

7.2 Political Fallout and the Fate of the Awami League

The interim government has taken stringent measures against the Awami League:

• Ban on the party’s political activities and freezing of assets linked to senior leaders.
• Large-scale arrests of party functionaries alleged to be involved in orchestrating violence.
• Ongoing debate on whether a reconstituted “reformist” version of the party may later be allowed.

This has raised questions about pluralism and whether justice is being applied evenly or selectively. Legal commentators caution that for sustainable democracy, accountability must not morph into victor’s justice.

7.3 Civil Society and Victim-Centric Perspectives

Civil society organisations have welcomed the recognition of victims’ suffering but are pressing for:

• Comprehensive truth-telling about the 2024 events, including publication of full findings.
• Institutional reforms of police, intelligence agencies and emergency laws.
• Long-term psychosocial support for survivors and families, acknowledging that justice is not only about punishment but also about healing – “ক্ষত নিরাময় করা, শুধুই শাস্তি নয়”.

8. International Response

8.1 India’s Dilemma and the Extradition Question

India, hosting Sheikh Hasina as a de facto political refugee, faces a complex foreign-policy and legal challenge. Bangladesh’s interim government has requested extradition, citing the gravity of the crimes and the tribunal’s verdict. India has so far responded cautiously, emphasising:

• Respect for legal processes on both sides
• Concern for regional stability and bilateral relations
• The need to examine treaty obligations and human-rights considerations, especially around the death penalty

The situation has turned Sheikh Hasina’s presence in India into a high-stakes diplomatic issue, with both legal and geopolitical consequences.

8.2 United Nations and Human-Rights Bodies

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights termed the verdict an important moment for victims, while reiterating its consistent opposition to the death penalty. International human-rights organisations issued nuanced responses:

• Welcoming the effort to hold powerful actors accountable for mass violence.
• Questioning aspects of due process, particularly trial in absentia and political context.
• Calling for commutation of death sentences in favour of terms of imprisonment.

8.3 Global Reaction and Implications for Aid and Investment

Donor countries and international financial institutions are watching closely. On one hand, credible accountability for human-rights abuses can enhance rule-of-law credentials. On the other, perceptions of politicised justice and sustained domestic instability may deter foreign investment. For Bangladesh, striking the right balance between justice, stability and economic priorities will be essential.

9. Fair Trial Debate and Procedural Criticisms

9.1 Supporters’ Perspective: A Long-Overdue Break from Impunity

Supporters argue that the trial:

• Signals that even the most powerful are not above the law – “আইনের চোখে সবাই সমান”.
• Addresses a culture of impunity that has long plagued South Asian politics.
• Sets a precedent for holding leaders accountable for deployment of lethal force against protesters.

9.2 Critics’ Perspective: Political Vendetta and Due-Process Concerns

Critics point to several concerns:

• Trial in absentia, which they argue undermines the accused’s ability to effectively participate in their defence.
• The timing of the tribunal under a government that has banned the accused’s party, creating an appearance of victor’s justice.
• Questions about the reliability and independence of some witnesses, especially those with political or institutional stakes.

For them, the case risks being remembered as “বিচার, কিন্তু প্রশ্নবিদ্ধ বিচার” – justice, but contested justice.

9.3 Comparison with Earlier War-Crimes Trials under ICT-1

ICT-1 previously tried several individuals for 1971 war crimes, and those proceedings also faced scrutiny for due-process shortcomings and political influences. The Sheikh Hasina case differs in that:

• It concerns contemporary political violence, not historical war-time conduct.
• It targets a former sitting Prime Minister rather than non-state actors or opposition leaders alone.
• It has been telecast live, increasing transparency as well as politicisation.

The case will likely become a central reference point in academic and policy debates on domestic tribunals for international crimes.

10. Historical Parallels and Transitional Justice Context

10.1 Is This “Bangladesh’s Bhutto Moment”?

Some commentators compare Sheikh Hasina’s sentencing to the execution of former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979. In both cases, a former head of government faced capital punishment under a regime that had replaced them. However, there are important differences in legal framework, factual context and international reaction.

Whether one sees the Hasina verdict as a courageous stand against state crimes or a dangerous precedent of politicised capital punishment will influence how the analogy is drawn.

10.2 Leaders on Trial for Suppressing Protest Movements

Globally, there are other examples of leaders being tried after protests against them turned violent. Few, however, have resulted in death sentences. This makes the Sheikh Hasina case particularly noteworthy in the field of comparative transitional justice. It raises the question: can domestic courts effectively address mass violence committed during political crises without sliding into partisan retribution?

10.3 Justice, Memory and the Future of Democracy in Bangladesh

For Bangladesh, the verdict is about more than a single leader. It is about how the state remembers and responds to a chapter where citizens were killed in the streets for demanding change. Achieving lasting justice will require:

• Institutional reforms to prevent such abuses in the future
• Educational and memorial initiatives so that future generations understand the cost of authoritarian excess – “ইতিহাস ভুলে গেলে ভবিষ্যৎ আরও ভয়ঙ্কর হয়”
• Meaningful inclusion of victims’ voices in policy and reform processes

11. The Road Ahead

11.1 Legal Pathways and Possible Future Developments

Several legal scenarios are possible:

• Efforts at extradition and execution of the sentence if political conditions permit.
• Potential commutation of the death sentence under domestic or international pressure.
• Future legal or constitutional measures – such as amnesties or truth-and-reconciliation frameworks – that may alter the practical impact of the verdict.

11.2 Political Scenarios and Regional Dynamics

Domestically, the verdict will shape:

• The restructuring of party politics in Bangladesh
• The interim government’s credibility as a neutral arbiter
• Public trust in institutions, especially the judiciary and law-enforcement agencies

Regionally, India, China, the Gulf states and international partners will factor this case into their strategic calculations. For South Asia, it serves as a reminder that unresolved grievances, if met with repression rather than dialogue, can spiral into crises that shake the state itself.

12. Conclusion

The trial and conviction of Sheikh Hasina mark a decisive, controversial and historically significant moment in Bangladesh’s legal and political evolution. Whether viewed as “justice at last” or as an example of “politicised justice”, the case forces difficult questions:

• How should a democracy respond to mass abuses committed by its own government?
• Can domestic tribunals fairly try powerful political figures without succumbing to partisan pressures?
• What is the right balance between retribution, deterrence, reconciliation and institutional reform?

For victims of the 2024 uprising, the verdict acknowledges their suffering and assigns culpability at the highest levels of power. For legal practitioners and scholars across South Asia, it will remain a rich case study in crimes against humanity, command responsibility, trial in absentia and transitional justice.

As many in Dhaka said on the day of the verdict, “ইতিহাস রচনা হয়েছে আজ” – history has indeed been written. The deeper challenge for Bangladesh is to ensure that this chapter of history leads not to renewed cycles of revenge, but to a more just, accountable and democratic future.