1,001 university teachers condemn Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence

As many as 1,001 progressive teachers of public universities in Bangladesh have rejected the verdict against five-time Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, terming it farcical and unacceptable.

Signed by Dr. Mahbub Alam Pradeep, Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, the statement said: “We note with deep anger and sadness that the verdict was announced by the International Crimes Tribunal against Sheikh Hasina.”

She is the successful Prime Minister of Bangladesh and President of the Awami League. The ICT-BD has now taken the form of a kangaroo court through its dictatorial, biased, and anti-justice activities, including false witness testimony.

FULL STATEMENT OF SHEIKH HASINA

The crores of people in this country, inspired by the ideals of Bangabandhu, independence, and the spirit of the liberation war, have rejected such a hateful, conspiratorial, and predetermined verdict against Sheikh Hasina, the architect of a modern and prosperous Bangladesh, the statement said.

“We, the progressive teachers’ community, who believe in the spirit of independence and the liberation war, express solidarity with the general public of Bangladesh and reject the farcical verdict of the Kangaroo Court with hatred.”

Meanwhile, the party announced a total shutdown on Tuesday and demonstrations from Wednesday to Friday.

Bangabandhu’s daughter, Sheikh Hasina, denounced the court verdict convicting her of “crimes against humanity” as a “biased and politically motivated sham” delivered by an “illegal tribunal.”

“The verdicts announced against me have been made by a rigged tribunal established and presided over by an unelected government with no democratic mandate,” Hasina said in a statement.

“They are biased and politically motivated, orchestrated by a court widely criticised as illegitimate and run under the influence of the war criminal Jamaat-e-Islami party, which has long disregarded Bangladesh’s laws and international standards.”

Hasina categorically rejected the tribunal’s authority, dismissing all charges as fabricated. “It’s a guilty verdict against me that was a foregone conclusion from an apparatus designed to convict, not to seek truth,” she added in her detailed five-page statement. She expressed willingness to face a fair trial remotely from abroad.

“I am not afraid to face my accusers in a proper tribunal where the evidence can be weighed and tested fairly,” she declared. “That is why I have repeatedly challenged the interim government to bring these charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague—a venue they dread, knowing the ICT-BD’s own record of illegality and bias would collapse under scrutiny.”

She further accused the Yunus-led setup of fearing ICC examination of its human rights record, including extrajudicial killings and suppression of dissent. Hasina lambasted Yunus for seizing power “unconstitutionally” with backing from “extremist elements,” including Jamaat, whose history of violence and opposition to Bangladesh’s secular ethos casts a dark shadow over the tribunal’s operations.

ICT-BD: Sheikh Hasina snubs false charges in illegal court

Complete Shutdown: Sheikh Hasina urges all to make it successful

ICT-BD: Yunus gang wants death verdict against Sheikh Hasina in sham trial

“Under his rule, every protest—from students and garment workers to doctors, nurses, teachers, and professionals—has been crushed with brutal force,” Hasina charged. “Peaceful demonstrators have been shot dead, while journalists exposing these atrocities endure harassment, torture, and imprisonment. Economic stagnation has set in, elections are endlessly delayed, and the Awami League—Bangladesh’s oldest party—has been unlawfully banned. Properties of my party’s leaders have been torched and looted nationwide, a pogrom unchecked by this so-called government of ‘justice.’”

Reflecting on the July-August 2024 violence that precipitated her ouster, Hasina defended her administration’s response as a good-faith effort to restore order and avert greater bloodshed. “We lost control amid the chaos, but to paint it as a premeditated massacre is a gross distortion,” she said.

Prosecutors, she claimed, failed to adduce credible evidence of her directing “lethal force,” relying instead on decontextualised audio clips and incomplete transcripts. “Operational decisions lie with on-ground security forces following legal protocols—not my personal fiat,” she insisted.