Former Bangladeshi state minister and Awami League leader Mohammad Ali Arafat has decried the November 17 death sentence handed to ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as not merely an injustice against her personally, but a “shameful” dismantling of Bangladesh’s constitutional foundations.
In a blistering op-ed published Friday in Firstpost, Arafat, a Central Executive Committee member of the Awami League and longtime spokesperson for Hasina, argues that the trial—conducted under the Yunus-led interim government—was riddled with procedural illegality, political bias, and violations of international norms, setting a perilous precedent for the nation’s fragile democracy.
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) in Dhaka convicted Hasina in absentia on charges of crimes against humanity for her government’s deadly crackdown on student-led protests in July 2024, which the United Nations estimates left up to 1,400 dead—a figure challenged by the former prime minister, Sheikh Hasina.
The tribunal also sentenced former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death, while a third defendant, a former police chief who turned state witness, received five years in prison.
Sheikh Hasina, who was flown to India on August 5, 2024, dismissed the verdict as a “rigged tribunal” in a statement released shortly after the ruling. Bangladesh’s interim government hailed it as a “historic verdict” of profound significance, renewing calls for India to extradite Hasina under the bilateral treaty. India, however, has only “noted” the decision, emphasising constructive engagement without committing to extradition.
Awami League denounces ICT-BD warrant against Sajeeb Wazed Joy
Disappearance Case: How Jamaat-run ICT-BD flexing muscles for revenge
Victory Month Ignites Fury: Awami League vows to crush killer-fascist Yunus occupiers
Arafat’s piece, titled “The death sentence that shames Bangladesh: Why Sheikh Hasina’s trial was a constitutional farce,” pulls no punches in labelling the proceedings “political theatre performed on an illegitimate stage.” He contends that the tribunal’s very existence stems from four executive ordinances issued by Muhammad Yunus’ unelected interim administration, amending the 1973 International Crimes (Tribunals) Act.
Under Article 93 of the Bangladesh Constitution, Arafat notes, such ordinances are permissible only when Parliament is not in session and must be ratified within 30 days, or they expire. With no functioning Parliament since Hasina’s ouster, he argues, these measures are “ultra vires,” or beyond legal authority, rendering the entire trial void.
“This isn’t just irregular; it’s the complete destruction of the judiciary’s independence,” Arafat writes, pointing to the appointment of probationary judges lacking the required High Court Division confirmation and security of tenure. He attributes this to the forced resignation of the entire Supreme Court in August 2024 under mob threats, followed by the installation of “politically aligned” replacements. Defenders of the verdict, he says, invoke the “revolution” of 2024 as granting legitimacy, but Arafat counters by citing the Pakistan Supreme Court’s 1972 Asma Jilani judgment: a usurper who destroys the legal order cannot become a valid source of law and must face trial for high treason when power slips away.
At the heart of the prosecution’s case were audio recordings purportedly capturing Hasina ordering killings during the protests. Arafat calls this “shocking incompetence or deliberate manipulation,” asserting the evidence was illegally obtained in violation of Article 43’s privacy protections, with no court authorisation for wiretaps. He dissects a key phone conversation with Dhaka University’s vice-chancellor, claiming the tribunal “spliced together unrelated parts” to fabricate a kill order.
Purbachal Plot Case: Sheikh Hasina exposes hypocrisy of the accusers
Awami League brands Yunus’ jihadist regime a ‘killer-fascist’ menace
In reality, Sheikh Hasina was referencing judicial punishments for convicted Jamaat leaders and endorsing campus expulsions—not extrajudicial violence—after the vice-chancellor’s suggestion.
The trial’s in absentia format draws Arafat’s fiercest ire. He argues that Hasina fled not voluntarily, but under immediate threat from “armed mobs marching on her residence,” denying her the chance to appear. International law, per the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by Bangladesh), permits such trials only for those who abscond after initial court appearances. Here, her supporters were barred from the tribunal, and senior lawyers were blocked; the court-appointed defender admitted receiving “no instructions from the defendant.” Compounding this, Arafat highlights the denial of appeal rights: Hasina must surrender within 30 days or forfeit them, a condition the UN deems incompatible with pending appeals in death penalty cases.
The op-ed also lambasts the trial’s breakneck speed—from indictment to verdict in months—as incompatible with the complexity of crimes against humanity charges, which international tribunals typically deliberate over years. Arafat accuses the process of one-sided “victor’s revenge,” noting over 500 Awami League activists murdered in revenge killings between August 5 and 15, 2024, with perpetrators granted blanket immunity as “desperate self-defense.” No cases have been filed, he claims, exposing the interim regime’s selective justice.
Chief Prosecutor Muhammad Tajul Islam’s past role defending Jamaat-e-Islami war criminals and his calls to ban the Awami League further taint the proceedings, Arafat asserts. He questions the ICT Act’s applicability altogether: designed for 1971 war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, it ill-fits “civil unrest” like the 2024 protests, which should fall under ordinary criminal law. Hasina, as “legitimate head of government” facing a “coordinated terrorist attack,” exercised her duty under Penal Code Section 96 for state self-defense, he maintains.
Arafat’s critique echoes concerns from global watchdogs. Amnesty International has condemned the tribunal for “lack of independence and unfair proceedings,” including inadequate defense preparation and pressure for death sentences. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has flagged the “selective nature of prosecutions” and urged comprehensive accountability meeting international standards. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Hasina’s rival, has celebrated the verdict as burying “all forms of dictatorship.”
Deeper still, Arafat warns of the regime’s ties to 1971 collaborators who committed genocide and were barred from politics post-surrender. He alleges rising ISIS flags, attacks on minorities, and the dismantling of secular institutions signal a “historical perversion” where war criminals now judge the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
“Hasina remains the lawful prime minister,” Arafat insists, as she never resigned or dissolved Parliament; her departure due to duress doesn’t legitimise the seizure of power, which Article 7A deems high treason. All acts of the interim government—from ordinances to verdicts—are “void ab initio.” Even the president’s role in promulgating them lacks constitutional backing without a legitimate advisory government.
In a stark warning, Arafat cautions that endorsing such “kangaroo courts” endangers everyone: “Today it’s Sheikh Hasina; tomorrow it could be anyone who opposes those in power.” He calls for real justice through proper processes, truth-telling, and reconciliation, not “theatrical performances” that destroy democracy. “Injustice celebrated is democracy destroyed,” he concludes, urging citizens to document violations and prepare for restoring constitutional order.
The op-ed arrives amid ongoing fallout from the verdict, including Hasina’s additional 21-year sentence on November 27 for land-grab corruption in Purbachal. With February 2026 elections looming, tensions simmer: protests demanding demolition of Sheikh Hasina’s family home clashed with police post-verdict, and her son has warned of violence if the Awami League faces a participation ban.
Bengali 
English