Bangladesh’s former PM Sheikh Hasina has been found guilty and sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). Sheikh Hasina has described this decision as one-sided and politically motivated. The former PM of Bangladesh said, ‘This decision was given without hearing my side. This decision has been given by a tribunal which is being run by an unelected government. He has no mandate from the public. This is completely wrong.

Bangladesh court found Sheikh Hasina guilty

Sheikh Hasina, who has been living in India since the fall of her government on August 5 last year, has been sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal-Bangladesh (ICT-BD). Earlier the court had declared him a fugitive. Reading out the verdict in court, the tribunal said the prosecution had proved beyond any doubt that Hasina was behind the deadly crackdown on student-led protests between July 15 and August 15 last year.

I was not given a chance to present my side: Sheikh Hasina

A report by the United Nations Human Rights Office estimated that 1,400 people were killed during the nearly month-long movement known as the ‘July Uprising’. Sheikh Hasina said, ‘This decision was decided earlier. I was neither given a chance to present my side nor to be represented by my lawyer. There is nothing international in ICT.

Sheikh Hasina claimed that the tribunal had only prosecuted Awami League members, while ignoring violence allegedly perpetrated by political opponents. Former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan was also sentenced to death, while a former police officer was sentenced to five years in prison after turning approver.

Sheikh Hasina’s allegations against Yunus government

Former PM Hasina said that no respectable or legal person in the world will support Bangladesh ICT. He argued that this court was being used to remove the last elected Prime Minister of Bangladesh and eliminate the Awami League as a political force. He further alleged that Yunus’ forces launched retaliatory attacks across the country and looted hundreds of homes, businesses and properties of Awami League leaders and workers.

The International Criminal Tribunal (ICT) of Bangladesh is going to pronounce its verdict on the alleged charges against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Monday (17 November). Citing part of an investigation report, the judge said that former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had ordered the use of helicopters and lethal weapons to kill civilians protesting in the country. The report claims that the order is based on an alleged conversation between Sheikh Hasina and former South Dhaka Municipal Corporation mayor Sheikh Fazal Noor Taposh.

The ICT judge also said that the investigation team has thoroughly investigated the incidents and statements of many witnesses have been recorded. The report also indicated that the purpose of the order was to control the protests, but it did not shy away from risking the life of any citizen. ICT said that Sheikh Hasina’s crime is against humanity. At the same time, charges have also been framed against the former Home Minister of Bangladesh.

What did the judge say?

Quoting the investigation report, the judge said that Sheikh Hasina’s government got Abu Syed’s postmortem report changed four to five times. Abu Syed was killed during police firing on 16 July 2024. Her death gave further impetus to student-led protests demanding the ouster of Sheikh Hasina’s government. The judge said that the government threatened the doctor and said that there was an intelligence report against him, due to which the doctor was forced to change the postmortem report of Abu Syed.

ICT has made serious allegations against Sheikh Hasina, saying that she had ordered to kill the protesting students. In the report read by the Chief Justice of ICT, Hasina had given instructions to take violent action against the protesting students in a phone conversation with the Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University. The judge said that Hasina insulted the students of Dhaka University and this enraged the students. The judge said that Hasina had ordered action to harm the students. The court said that his statements were not only derogatory but also inciting violence.