Justice or Political Vendetta?

By Sanjeev Oak

Bangladesh’s death sentence against Sheikh Hasina marks a turning point that blurs the line between justice and political retribution. The verdict raises troubling questions about the credibility of the tribunal, the role of the interim government, and the implications for regional stability and democratic norms.

When a former head of government is sentenced to death for “crimes against humanity,” the reverberations travel far beyond the courtroom. Sheikh Hasina’s conviction by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) is precisely such a moment — a rare, destabilising intersection of law, power, history, and geopolitics.

The tribunal’s decision to award the maximum punishment not only marks an unprecedented legal event; it forces deeper questions: Is this genuine accountability or a politically scripted purge? Are Bangladesh’s institutions delivering justice, or becoming proxies in a wider struggle for power? And what does this mean for a region already grappling with democratic backsliding?

This analysis attempts to disentangle the legal, political, and historical currents shaping this explosive verdict — and what it portends for Bangladesh’s future.

The Charges and the Trial: An Unsettling Process

Sheikh Hasina and her former Home Minister were found guilty of authorising excessive and lethal force during the massive 2024 student movement that shook Bangladesh. The tribunal cited helicopter deployments, drone surveillance, command responsibility, and orders that allegedly escalated the crackdown.

But the nature of the trial raises as many questions as it claims to answer.

Hasina was tried in absentia, having fled to India after her government collapsed. An in-absentia trial in a case carrying the death penalty is inherently fraught. Without physical presence, defence strategy becomes nearly impossible: no live testimony, no cross-examination, no ability to challenge evidence in real-time.

Legal observers note that trials in absentia may be permissible in limited contexts, but they demand extraordinary procedural safeguards — few of which were visibly present here.

Even more troubling is the timing. The verdict arrives at a moment when the interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, is struggling for legitimacy; prosecuting Hasina became its central political performance. It is difficult to ignore the impression that judicial energies aligned uncannily well with political convenience.

There is also the matter of institutional design. The ICT was originally established to try war crimes relating to 1971. Repurposing it to target a political predecessor raises uncomfortable questions about its neutrality. A tribunal created for historical justice has become the arena for contemporary political vengeance.

And then there is the judge’s own phrasing in the verdict:

“We have decided to inflict her with only one sentence — the sentence of death.”

The remark, dramatic by judicial standards, underscores the performative tone of the verdict. Justice, when it must speak loudly, is often on uncertain ground.

The Shadow of History: 1975 All Over Again

Bangladesh’s politics has long been haunted by ghosts of its turbulent past. In 1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman — Hasina’s father and the founding leader of the nation — was assassinated in a coup that reshaped the country’s destiny.

Hasina spent decades rebuilding her father’s political legacy, and ruling Bangladesh for a combined 19 years. For her supporters, her sentencing evokes a painful sense of historical déjà vu: a leader from the Mujib family, once again toppled and condemned by forces eager to erase a political lineage.

Her political opponents, however, see a different pattern: decades of centralisation of power, suppression of dissent, and a security apparatus increasingly loyal to her command. From this angle, the trial is less a rupture and more a reckoning.

But whether a reckoning can be trusted depends heavily on who is doing the judging — and why now.

The Yunus Factor: From Morality to Majoritarian Politics

The role of Muhammad Yunus in this unfolding crisis cannot be understated. Once internationally admired as a moral voice, Yunus now leads an interim government whose legitimacy is widely questioned.

From the moment he assumed power, the interim administration prioritised the prosecution of Hasina, banned the Awami League, dismissed her allies, and filled key institutions with sympathetic figures.

The perception that the tribunal operates under political shadow is therefore unavoidable. Critics argue that Yunus’s government is using judicial mechanisms not as an instrument of reform but as a tool of political erasure.

Hasina herself has described the tribunal as a “kangaroo court,” claiming that its purpose is not justice but annihilation of the political opposition. In her telling, the verdict is the culmination of a campaign to eliminate her from Bangladesh’s political landscape entirely.

Whether one accepts her account or not, the broader concern is unmistakable: the line separating transitional justice from political vendetta has become dangerously blurred.

Human Rights Concerns and the Question of the Death Penalty

The tribunal’s use of the death penalty has drawn widespread criticism from international human rights bodies. Capital punishment, especially in politically charged trials, is considered incompatible with modern norms of human rights and restorative justice.

If the trial were unmistakably fair, transparent, and unimpeachable, the ethical debate would still be significant. In a case marked by contested evidence, limited access to defence, and clear political entanglements, the stakes of an irreversible punishment are even more troubling.

This verdict is not merely punitive; it is existential. It ends political careers, shapes national memory, and potentially seals a leader’s legacy with judicial finality. Such consequences require not just legal correctness but moral certainty — and Bangladesh’s current institutional climate offers little of that.

A Politicised Judiciary and the Risks of Retaliatory Justice

Bangladesh has long struggled with the delicate relationship between the judiciary and executive power. Under Hasina’s rule, courts were widely seen as increasingly aligned with the government. Now, in a sharp reversal, the judiciary appears aligned with a new political coalition — suggesting not reform, but rotation of influence.

When judicial power swings with political winds, verdicts lose moral authority. Retributive justice becomes indistinguishable from political vendetta. Political transitions begin to resemble regime purges rather than democratic renewal.

This trial risks setting a precedent where each incoming regime prosecutes its predecessor, not to address criminality but to consolidate power. Such cycles are the hallmark of fragile democracies sliding into confrontational authoritarianism.

Geopolitical Pressures: India, the Region, and the Strategic Fallout

Hasina’s verdict thrusts India into a difficult diplomatic corner. She currently resides in India, and Bangladesh has requested her extradition. New Delhi must now navigate a terrain where strategic interests, moral considerations, and political calculations collide.

For India, Hasina was a reliable partner — particularly on counterterrorism, connectivity, and regional stability. The Yunus government adopts a markedly different posture, appearing more responsive to Western and Islamist political pressures.

Extraditing Hasina would be seen as endorsing a questionable legal process. Refusing could strain ties with Dhaka and push Bangladesh further into geopolitical alignments hostile to India.

The verdict therefore complicates South Asia’s balance of power. It may embolden political forces seeking to re-Islamise Bangladesh’s political landscape, threaten hard-won secular reforms, and weaken a key buffer against radicalisation in the region.

If Bangladesh descends further into polarisation, instability could spill across borders. A nation once projected as a rising economic story now risks turning into a hotspot of political turbulence.

Economic Backdrop: A Country in Flux

Beyond the political theatre lies Bangladesh’s economic reality. Under Hasina, the country achieved substantial growth, textile dominance, expanding exports, and significant social development.

Her critics argue that she achieved this through excessive centralisation, bureaucratic control, and suppression of dissent. Her supporters counter that the developmental model remained one of South Asia’s most successful, reducing poverty and boosting female workforce participation.

The interim regime lacks both the economic credibility and the administrative apparatus to maintain this momentum. Investor confidence is shaken, development projects have slowed, and uncertainty clouds the business climate.

The death sentence risks deepening this volatility. Countries undergoing political vendettas rarely inspire economic confidence.

Legal-Legitimacy Crisis: What Counts as Justice?

Trials for crimes against humanity carry an immense burden of legitimacy. They are meant to represent the moral conscience of a nation. When such trials appear politically motivated, they compromise not just the defendant’s rights but the moral architecture of justice itself.

For a verdict to stand as historic justice, it must demonstrate:

• absolute transparency
• unimpeachable evidence
• credible independence of judiciary
• impeccable adherence to fair-trial standards

None of these are convincingly present in Hasina’s case.

What emerges instead is a narrative where law is deployed as a political technology — precise, punitive, and performative.

Societal Polarisation and the Risk of Violent Reprisal

Bangladesh today is a deeply polarised society. The student movement that precipitated the fall of Hasina was rooted in genuine grievances, but it was also infiltrated by radical elements seeking regime change.

The trial does nothing to heal these divides. If anything, it hardens them. Hasina’s supporters feel persecuted; her opponents feel vindicated; neutral citizens feel anxious.

History shows that when former leaders are executed or threatened with execution:

• political networks radicalise
• institutions crumble
• moderate factions weaken
• populist and extremist forces gain strength

Bangladesh risks entering such a cycle unless reconciliation takes precedence over punishment.

Institutional Precedent: The Dangers Ahead

The implications of this trial stretch far beyond Hasina’s own fate.

If political transitions become judicial battles, the future of every elected government becomes precarious. Leaders will prioritise survival over governance. Bureaucracies will learn to serve only incumbent interests. Judicial institutions will drift further from impartiality.

Bangladesh, a country that once held promise for democratic stability and rapid development, now risks becoming another South Asian example of democratic fragility — where institutions serve not citizens, but victors.

A Way Forward: Justice Without Vengeance

What is needed now is not triumphalism but sobriety. If genuine accountability is the goal, the process must be reopened with full transparency and international oversight. Independent monitoring could help restore credibility to a process already overshadowed by doubt.

Bangladesh must choose between two futures:

• one where justice is weaponised and dissent criminalised
• another where national reconciliation, institutional independence, and democratic norms triumph over political score-settling

It is not too late for the country to take the latter path, but the window is narrowing.

The Verdict That Will Define a Generation

Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence is not merely a legal judgment. It is a political and moral flashpoint that will shape Bangladesh for decades.

If the verdict stands without transparent, credible review, it will symbolise the institutionalisation of retaliatory justice. If it is reconsidered with fairness and independence, it could still become a turning point — not for vengeance, but for democratic renewal.

At its core, this moment tests whether Bangladesh’s institutions serve justice or power.

If justice becomes indistinguishable from political vendetta, then no verdict — however dramatic — can heal a nation.

Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads. What happens next will determine whether its democracy deepens or dissolves into cycles of retribution. History will remember not just the sentence, but the principles — or the prejudices — that shaped it.