In a resounding call for judicial integrity amid Bangladesh’s spiralling political turmoil, 100 doctors from hospitals and clinics across the country and abroad issued a blistering joint statement condemning the International Crimes Tribunal’s (ICT-BD) death sentence against exiled Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as a “retaliatory verdict” tainted by bias, coercion, and political meddling.
The physicians’ outcry—framed as a defense of democracy and the rule of law—echoes mounting international and domestic alarms, including Amnesty International’s scathing critique of the trial’s unfairness and Hasina’s defiant rejection of the proceedings as a “biased and politically motivated sham” unfit for global scrutiny.
The doctors’ statement, circulated widely on social media and to media outlets, paints a damning picture of the tribunal’s collapse under the weight of the unelected Yunus interim regime’s influence.
“The biased and non-transparent judicial process of the ICT-BD poses a serious threat to the rule of law in Bangladesh,” the group declared, highlighting “inconsistencies in judicial proceedings, lack of transparency, and clear indications of political influence” that have “undermined public confidence in the neutrality of the trial.”
They decried reports of “unusual pressure on the court,” “one-sided presentation of information,” the denial of Hasina’s right to appoint her own counsel, and the imposition of a “partisan” court-appointed lawyer—moves they labelled “deeply troubling and even absurd.”
The doctors asserted that “whether the accused is a political leader or an ordinary citizen, justice must be administered transparently, impartially, and without coercion.”
As medical professionals sworn to “uphold truth,” they positioned their protest as a bulwark against the erosion of democratic norms, warning that this “orchestrated, influenced, and retaliatory verdict—designed to fulfil political vengeance—has profoundly damaged public trust in the country’s justice system.”
Their demands are unequivocal: immediate annulment of the verdict and a full retrial under transparent conditions; a judiciary insulated from “political or administrative pressure”; equal rights for all parties to select counsel and present evidence; and rulings grounded “solely in law, truth, and credible evidence—not predetermined influence or external pressure.”
“We stand united in our commitment to protect democracy and the rule of law,” the statement concluded. “Justice is the foundation of the state—without it, the nation inevitably moves toward a perilous future.”
Sheikh Hasina slams ICT-BD verdict as biased, politically motivated
1,001 university teachers condemn Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence
Amnesty condemns revenge trial death sentence for Sheikh Hasina as unfair
The ICT-BD’s November 17 verdict convicted Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal in absentia of crimes against humanity linked to the deadly crackdown on July-August 2024 student protests.
From her exile in India, Hasina has amplified these concerns in her detailed five-page statement issued Monday, denouncing the verdict as orchestrated by a tribunal “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.”
She categorically rejected the ICT-BD’s authority, dismissing all charges as fabricated and declaring: “The verdicts announced against me have been made by a rigged tribunal established and presided over by an unelected government with no democratic mandate. They are biased and politically motivated.” Hasina described the guilty finding as “a foregone conclusion from an apparatus designed to convict, not to seek truth,” while expressing 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 alleged extrajudicial killings and suppression of dissent, and 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.
“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.
Amnesty International, in a parallel broadside issued Tuesday, lent global heft to these domestic cries, with Secretary General Agnès Callamard denouncing the trial as “neither fair nor just” and a betrayal of the 2024 massacre’s victims. “Those individually responsible for the egregious violations and allegations of crimes against humanity that took place during the student-led protests in July and August 2024 must be investigated and prosecuted in fair trials,” Callamard stated.
“However, this trial and sentence is neither fair nor just. Victims need justice and accountability, yet the death penalty simply compounds human rights violations. It’s the ultimate cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment and has no place in any justice process.”
Callamard slammed the ICT-BD’s “lack of independence and history of unfair proceedings”—a critique Amnesty has leveled since 2013—flagging the trial’s “unprecedented speed” in absentia, “manifestly inadequate” defense preparation despite a court-appointed lawyer, and blocked cross-examinations of contradictory evidence as gross violations of fair trial rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“Justice for survivors and victims demands that fiercely independent and impartial proceedings, which meet international human rights standards are conducted,” she emphasised. “This was not a fair trial. The victims of July 2024 deserve far better. Bangladesh needs a justice process that is scrupulously fair and fully impartial beyond all suspicion of bias and does not resort to order further human rights violations through the death penalty. Only then can genuine and meaningful truth, justice and reparations be delivered.”
Amnesty categorically opposes the death penalty “in all cases without exception,” arguing it “compounds human rights violations” rather than delivering accountability. The watchdog’s documentation of the 2024 violence—including video evidence of unlawful lethal force against protesters—underscores the irony: a tribunal meant to reckon with atrocities has instead become, in critics’ eyes, a politicised tool of the Yunus administration, accused of shielding its own radicals while targeting Hasina’s camp.
Activists say Bangladesh is stumbling toward delayed elections under Yunus’s “reformist” banner—besieged by port privatisation scandals, worker unrest, and economic woes. As calls for ICC intervention swell, the tribunal’s shadow looms ever darker, threatening to fracture a nation desperate for healing but haunted by vengeance.
Bengali 
English