WASHINGTON, DC – The verdict against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina came as no surprise. Yet it marks a deeply troubling chapter in Bangladesh’s political and judicial history—one that exposes the collapse of due process under an unelected regime and the corrosive influence of international interference.
The trial unfolded in a court of questionable legitimacy, operating under a government born of unconstitutional circumstances. Power in this new order has coalesced in the hands of a single faction, where judge, jury, and prosecutors seem aligned under a single ideology.
What we are witnessing is not justice, but a calculated charade orchestrated by a regime consumed by political vengeance.
The consequences of this verdict extend far beyond one leader. It weakens democratic norms, destabilizes governance, and further erodes public confidence in the rule of law. The charges against Sheikh Hasina bordered on the absurd, and long before the judgment, it appeared politically motivated, shaping the perception of a show trial rather than a credible pursuit of justice.
Compounding this crisis is the diminishing international credibility of figures like Dr. Muhammad Yunus. Once hailed as a reformer, Yunus’s tenure has instead revealed a disturbing pattern of authoritarian consolidation.
Within three days of assuming power, he orchestrated the forced resignation of five Supreme Court appellate justices through threats of mob violence. This intimidation effectively muzzled the judiciary and erased the constitutional checks meant to safeguard against executive overreach. That single episode marked the beginning of ochlocracy in Bangladesh.
Yunus further entrenched his control by enacting indemnity provisions for those responsible for the violent upheavals of July and August. He also reconstituted the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) through executive order—transforming an institution created to prosecute 1971 war criminals into a political tool for targeting Sheikh Hasina and her senior party leaders.
By any measure, this exceeded the ICT’s jurisdiction; it was never empowered to try an elected prime minister or members of parliament for administrative decisions.
These actions have deepened Bangladesh’s democratic crisis and amplified the culture of impunity that now pervades its governance.
The irony is stark. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees every person the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal—yet that very principle has been cavalierly discarded. Even the UN Human Rights Commission’s flawed report on Bangladesh acknowledged that no criminal prosecution should arise from its findings alone.
Nonetheless, a government driven by vengeance has seized upon it as justification to persecute a duly elected head of government.
Equally alarming is the unprecedented level of involvement by the United Nations in what amounts to a regime change.
High Commissioner Volker Türk’s admission in a BBC interview that he intervened to stop the Bangladeshi military from performing its constitutional duty to restore order, combined with UN Mission Chief Gwen Lewis’s interference in domestic politics, leaves little doubt about the UN’s overreach.
Under its current leadership, the organization cannot be absolved of complicity in the erosion of both Bangladesh’s sovereignty and its judicial integrity.
The legal foundation of the charges themselves reveals further deficiencies. The doctrine of command responsibility, invoked to justify the prosecution of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for alleged crimes against humanity, lacks a sound precedent in this context. Scholarly analyses confirm that command responsibility applies primarily within military or equivalent hierarchical command structures, requiring proof of effective control and omission to prevent subordinates’ actions. No such conditions exist in Sheikh Hasina’s case, rendering the doctrine’s application legally unsustainable.
In any functioning democracy, law enforcement officers who breach protocols during unrest are individually accountable through internal investigations. Responsibility does not extend automatically to the police chief, the home minister, or the political executive—least of all the prime minister.
If Bangladesh’s armed forces committed excesses, accountability should first rest with the Army Chief and the head of military intelligence—both appointed by Prime Minister Hasina, yet curiously shielded from any scrutiny.
When the UN fact-finding mission visited Bangladesh earlier this year, its members neither interviewed the Army Chief nor the head of intelligence. Their omission underscores the selectivity and political motivation driving this entire process.
What now unfolds in Dhaka is not justice but a harrowing tale of political vengeance —an assault on the rule of law, a distortion of accountability, and a grave precedent of international meddling. It threatens not only Bangladesh’s fragile political landscape but also the very credibility of global institutions that claim to defend it.
Rana Hassan Mahmud
Rana Hassan Mahmud is Executive Director, Center for USA-Bangladesh Relations.
- Rana Hassan Mahmud#molongui-disabled-link
- Rana Hassan Mahmud#molongui-disabled-link
- Rana Hassan Mahmud#molongui-disabled-link
- Rana Hassan Mahmud#molongui-disabled-link
