Serious legal, constitutional, and procedural lapses have raised deep concerns over the validity of the death sentence handed down to ousted Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina by the International Crimes Tribunal–Bangladesh (ICT-B). According to sources familiar with the proceedings, the trial was marred by constitutional inconsistencies, questionable judicial appointments, prosecutorial bias, curtailed defence rights, accelerated timelines, politically charged cases, and an overall environment that fell short of fair-trial standards.
Fundamental Flaws in the Tribunal’s Legal Basis
A Tribunal Operating on an Outdated Framework
The ICT-B was established under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973—legislation drafted specifically to prosecute genocide and war crimes committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Legal experts argue that its structure was never designed for cases outside that historical period, making its use in current cases fundamentally flawed.
Invalid Amendments After August 5, 2024
Sources say amendments made through an Ordinance after August 5, 2024, are legally void from the outset. The executive authority lacked legitimacy, Parliament had not approved any such changes, and the President did not possess constitutional power under Article 93 to issue the Ordinance. Additionally, the dissolution of Parliament is itself alleged to have been carried out improperly, compromising the legal validity of subsequent actions.
Unconstitutional Judicial Appointments
Forced Resignations of Senior Judges
On August 10, 2024, the Chief Justice and five Appellate Division judges resigned under pressure after a student mob besieged the Supreme Court and issued an ultimatum. This unprecedented interference in the judiciary has raised serious alarm about the independence of the judicial process.
Improper Appointments to ICT-B
The current ICT-B panel was allegedly formed in violation of constitutional norms:
- Chairman Golam Mortuza Majumder, originally a retired district judge, was elevated to the High Court just six days before the ICT-B announced it would hear the cases.
- Mohitul Haque Mohammed Enam Chowdhury, a retired District and Sessions Judge, and
- Shafiul Alam Mahmud, a lawyer newly made a High Court judge,
were all appointed without the mandatory two-year probationary period required by Article 98 of the Constitution.
Additionally, 22 judges with Jamaat-e-Islami affiliations were reportedly elevated irregularly within a single year.
Lack of Necessary Expertise
None of the appointed judges have experience in international criminal law—a crucial requirement for trials involving crimes against humanity.
Concerns of Partisanship
Questions have been raised about political bias, particularly regarding Judge Shafiul Alam Mahmud, who previously contested Supreme Court Bar Association elections on a BNP-backed panel.
Prosecution and Defence Structurally Favoured a Pre-Decided Outcome
Prosecutorial Conflicts of Interest
The appointment of Mohammed Tajul Islam as Chief Prosecutor immediately raised concerns, given his prior role defending war criminals on behalf of Jamaat-e-Islami.
Similarly, the appointment of Toby Cadman, who also represented Jamaat leaders in earlier war crimes trials, as Special Adviser to the Chief Prosecutor is seen as evidence of political vendetta.
A Suspiciously Rushed Timeline
On November 18, 2024, the ICT-B ordered investigators to complete their probe within one month, despite the gravity of genocide charges—reinforcing concerns that outcomes were predetermined.
Denial of Right to Counsel
Sheikh Hasina repeatedly stated she was denied representation by lawyers of her choice.
State-appointed lawyer Md Amir Hossain admitted he made no effort to contact her, stating, “There is no provision allowing such an attempt.” He also acknowledged he had no experience in international criminal law.
In August 2025, senior lawyer Z.I. Khan Panna attempted to represent Hasina but the tribunal rejected his application midway through the testimony stage.
Conflict of Interest
The same state-appointed lawyer represented both Sheikh Hasina and the former Home Minister—an ethically unacceptable overlap in any fair trial.
Insufficient Preparation Time
The defence received all prosecution evidence only on June 25, 2025, just five weeks before the trial began. No request for more time was submitted, raising questions about the seriousness and independence of the defence.
Procedural Restrictions and Blocked Appeal Rights
Cross-Examination Curtailed
Prosecutors invoked a 2013 judgment from the Quader Mollah case to block the defence from cross-examining witnesses on contradictory statements—despite the same prosecutors arguing against such restrictions during earlier Jamaat trials.
Appeal Rights Denied
After the verdict, the defence lawyer claimed he could not file an appeal because the defendants were absconding. The tribunal also refused to provide him a copy of the verdict, raising additional concerns.
Trial Held Without the Accused
Legal observers argue that conducting a capital trial in the absence of the accused violates fundamental principles of justice and due process.
Compressed Trial Duration
The trial lasted from August 3 to October 23, 2025, with testimony closing on October 8—an unusually short window for complex, multi-witness crimes against humanity cases.
Politically Charged and Specious Cases
Thousands of Cases Filed Without Due Process
Since August 5, 2024:
- Over 200 cases were filed against Sheikh Hasina alone.
- More than 1,170 cases targeted over 400 former ministers, MPs, and leaders.
- Numerous FIRs involved unnamed individuals, with the same people allegedly charged in multiple districts on the same day.
Suppression of Free Speech
On December 5, 2024, the ICT attempted to ban media coverage of Sheikh Hasina’s statements even before the trials began.
Arbitrary Arrests
Detentions reportedly occurred without warrants or proper legal procedure.
No charges were brought regarding post–August 5 human rights abuses under the Anti-Discrimination Students Movement, which critics say were whitewashed as “political violence.”
Meanwhile, individuals affiliated with extremist groups—including convicted terrorist Lutfozamaan Babar and preacher Jashimuddin Rahmani—were released or granted bail.
Reports also indicate 11 custodial deaths of Awami League-linked individuals since August 2024.
Forensic Irregularities and Security Failures
Forensic inconsistencies included bullets that did not match police weapons.
Several high-profile Awami League leaders and lawyers—including Salman Rahman and Dipu Moni—were assaulted within court premises, further eroding the possibility of a fair trial.
Pre-Trial Statements Indicating Bias
Before the trial even began, senior officials publicly predicted the outcome:
- On October 17, 2024, Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam called Hasina the “helmsman of massacres” and claimed the arrest order was a “remarkable day.”
- On October 21, 2024, IT Advisor Nahid Islam said, “Hasina will return to Bangladesh only to walk to the gallows.”
Such statements, legal experts say, are incompatible with the presumption of innocence.
Why the ICC Was Not Approached
Although Bangladesh is a State Party to the Rome Statute, the interim government did not pursue proceedings through the International Criminal Court—reportedly due to inconsistencies in the case that would not meet ICC standards.