Death Sentence for Sheikh Hasina: A New Chapter in Bangladesh’s Political History

Another extraordinary chapter in the political history of Bangladesh was written when the International Crimes Tribunal handed down the death sentence to former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal on charges of heinous crimes against humanity. The former police chief, Abdullah Al-Mamun, who confessed before the court, was sentenced to five years in prison. The judgment has ignited a political tremor not only in Dhaka but across the entire region.

The three-member bench, presided over by Justice Muhammad Ghulam Murtaza, read out a meticulously detailed 453-page verdict. According to the judgment, a leaked audio call alongside other corroborative evidence establishes that Sheikh Hasina issued directives for the use of force against protesting students, employed “humiliating and tyrannical measures” to silence their voices, and rather than addressing their demands, further exacerbated the movement.

The court further ruled that any political party proven to have played a central role in state-sponsored violence forfeits its right to participate in future political activities. On this basis, a recommendation has been made to impose a ban on the Awami League’s political operations. This move may set a precedent in South Asian politics, where ruling parties are frequently accused of egregious misuse of state authority.

The scenes inside and outside the courtroom vividly reflected the political and social atmosphere of the moment. Those present inside applauded the ruling, while citizens poured onto the streets of Dhaka waving national flags in celebration. Many demonstrators gathered outside the residence of Bangladesh’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, demanding its demolition a striking indication of how deeply recent events have shaken national sentiment.

Interim government chief Dr. Muhammad Yunus hailed the decision as a “historic milestone,” stating that Bangladesh had, for the first time, taken a courageous step against state brutality and the unlawful deployment of coercive force. According to him, the verdict not only fulfills the requirements of justice but also sets a moral precedent for future generations.

In a dramatic diplomatic development, Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately demanded that India extradite the fugitive convicts Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Khan back to Dhaka.
In its official statement, the Ministry declared:

“Granting refuge to individuals implicated in crimes against humanity is not only an unfriendly act but an affront to justice itself.”

This demand represents a significant turning point in South Asian diplomacy. India’s response remains uncertain, but it is evident that a new phase of tension has now emerged in bilateral relations.

The Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami described the decision as a form of “partial solace” for the victims’ families, noting that those waiting for justice for years could finally breathe in relief. In stark contrast, Naheed Islam, the convener of the National Citizen Party (NCP), demanded at a press conference in Dhaka that Sheikh Hasina be brought back within one month and the sentence swiftly executed.
According to her:

“Today marks the redress of the injustices suffered by the thousands of martyrs and wounded fighters of the July Revolution.”

These statements attest that a significant portion of the population views the verdict as a vital step toward state consolidation and national purification.

The legal dimensions of the case are complex yet profoundly important. Although the International Crimes Tribunal was influenced by international legal standards, it operates entirely under the jurisdiction of Bangladesh’s domestic judiciary. For this reason, certain international observers question whether a punishment as extreme as the death penalty aligns with global legal norms.
Bangladeshi authorities, however, argue that in cases involving state violence, mass killings, and deliberate crackdowns on protesters, any leniency would be tantamount to a desecration of justice.

The most significant legal question surrounding Sheikh Hasina’s trial concerns whether individuals occupying the highest offices of the state can be held accountable for their decisions, directives, or acts of “culpable negligence.”
This remains a contentious issue worldwide, but the case has reinvigorated the debate with new urgency.

If formal evidence conclusively proves that state machinery was weaponized against political opponents or peaceful demonstrators, it constitutes not merely a violation of law but a repudiation of the ethical foundations of democracy. The tribunal’s ruling has drawn an unmistakable boundary regarding the “red line” of state power.

The court’s observation that the Awami League may no longer partake in political activity is nothing short of a political explosion. For over half a century, the Awami League has been a driving force in the nation’s political landscape. Should its formal dissolution begin, the political map of Bangladesh may undergo a complete and unprecedented transformation.

Political analysts believe the decision could herald the beginning of a new era in Bangladeshi politics. Some consider it a triumph of justice, while others perceive shadows of political retribution. Yet one fact is indisputable: public sensitivity toward state-inflicted violence has reached a historic high.

If the government ensures transparency, upholds the rule of law, and guarantees meaningful public participation, this decision may guide Bangladesh toward becoming a stronger, more accountable, and more genuinely democratic state.