Mohammad Ali Arafat, spokesperson for Awami League President and exiled Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and a former state minister, has strongly condemned the death sentence imposed on her by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD), calling it “legally void” and the outcome of a deeply flawed and politically motivated process.
In an exclusive interview with The Diplomat, where he is also in exile, Arafat described the November 17 verdict—delivered in absentia after convicting Hasina of crimes against humanity for her alleged role in suppressing the 2024 student-led uprising—as predetermined and unconstitutional.
When asked about his response to the guilty verdict and death sentence, Arafat stated: “The death sentence handed down by this kangaroo court is legally void. It was issued by judges who lacked constitutional authority, used illegally obtained evidence, denied the defendant her chosen counsel, and violated every principle of fair trial guaranteed under international law. The prosecution’s demand that she must surrender within 30 days or lose appeal rights is particularly outrageous. It essentially says that she must walk into a certain execution before challenging the verdict.”
He elaborated on the tribunal’s flaws: “The tribunal and the trial were deeply flawed in several ways. The tribunal’s judges and prosecutors were forced to resign, and then, a new tribunal was reconstituted with individuals linked to the Awami League’s political opposition, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, Amar Bangladesh Party, etc. The tribunal was reconstituted through an illegal amendment to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, as it was not ratified by parliament due to the absence of a functioning legislative body.”
Sheikh Hasina accuses Yunus of engineering killings
Sheikh Hasina lambasts Yunus-Jamaat clique for demeaning Victory Day
Sheikh Hasina: Extradition request should follow the law, not politics
Arafat singled out one judge: “One of the judges of the ICT, Shofiul Alam Mahmood, was an active member of the BNP’s lawyers’ forum and had never previously served as a judge. He was a practicing lawyer who was appointed as a High Court judge just six days before being appointed to the ICT. He had no prior judicial experience or responsibility. His appointment appears to have been politically motivated, clearly exposing the influence of politics over the judicial process.”
He also criticized the prosecution: “The prosecution team was headed by Tajul Islam, who had previously defended several high-profile leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, including Abdul Quader Molla and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed, accused war criminals, who were both tried previously by the same tribunal. While some previous cases were still ongoing, Tajul Islam suddenly became the chief prosecutor, effectively switching sides from defense to prosecution.”
Arafat added: “Sheikh Hasina could not appoint a defense lawyer for herself; the tribunal assigned one. The judges, the prosecution team, and the defense lawyer were all part of the same network. The judgment handed down to Sheikh Hasina was preordained — the verdict was decided before the trial even began. Most importantly, the tribunal could not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything the judges read during the verdict was false.”
On the separate convictions of Hasina’s sister, Sheikh Rehana (two years) and niece Tulip Siddiq (seven years) for land allocation irregularities, Arafat said: “Several respected senior legal experts have pointed out that Tulip Siddiq has been denied a fair legal process in this case and has not been informed of the specific charges against her. This remains the case despite repeated appeals from her legal team to the Bangladeshi authorities. Everyone facing accusations should always have the right to present a legal defense.”
He defended the family: “According to the allegations, Tulip Siddiq was accused of using her influence over her aunt, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, to obtain a plot of land on the outskirts of Dhaka for her family. However, anyone familiar with Bangladeshi politics knows that Tulip’s mother, Sheikh Rehana, is Sheikh Hasina’s sister, and the two are the only survivors of the August 15, 1975, massacre that killed 16 members of their family. As the daughter of the Father of the Nation, Sheikh Rehana was legally entitled to apply for the plot and was required to pay for it like any other applicant. Given the close familial relationship, the idea that Tulip would need to pressure Sheikh Hasina to obtain land for her own sister — who was already legally eligible — seems implausible. The Yunus-led administration fabricated this narrative solely to target Tulip for political reasons.”
Sajeeb Wazed: Yunus is preparing to flee as ‘foreign hand’ shadows polls
Sheikh Hasina condemns assault of teachers by Shibir’s DUCSU leader
Interview With IANS: Sheikh Hasina grateful to Modi, wary of Pakistan’s growing grip
Regarding a leaked audio allegedly showing Hasina authorising lethal force during the protests, Arafat responded: “The audio’s authenticity remains unverified, and the source cannot be independently confirmed. But importantly, the content of the audio and transcript, even if taken at face value, does not support the allegation of unlawful conduct or criminal intent. The audio isolates a brief excerpt from what appears to be a longer conversation. The speakers are talking about three distinct groups of people, and it is not evident whether the speakers are referring to student protesters, infiltrated militants, or other hostile actors.”
He analysed the audio further: “At the 0:19 mark, the female voice references the arrest of certain individuals, but offers no indication about the identity of these individuals. At the 0:50 mark, the male speaker mentions a group ‘moving toward Mohammadpur Police Station.’ The subsequent reference to the potential use of lethal weapons appears to be associated with the profile of the people who could move towards the police station. There is no basis to assume that the individuals referenced were student protesters, as it is unlikely that peaceful demonstrators would be advancing toward a police station. We should remember that during the protest, police officers and hundreds of police installations came under armed attack. Taken in its entirety, the available audio references the possible arrest of certain individuals and a discussion concerning the conditional authorisation of lethal force against a specific group that may have been approaching Mohammadpur Police Station, which may have warranted heightened security measures. In summary, the government acted within its sovereign responsibility to preserve national security, protect public safety, and prevent institutional collapse. The application of legitimate state force was directed exclusively at containing insurgent violence, not at peaceful student demonstrators.”
On UN estimates of up to 1,400 deaths during the July-August 2024 protests, Arafat said: “The U.N. claim of a 1,400-death toll for the period between July 15 and August 5, 2024, remains highly controversial. Nearly nine months after the report’s release, the U.N. has still not provided the names of the alleged victims, raising serious doubts about the accuracy of the figure. The Yunus administration published a list of 800 names, but several major Bangladeshi media outlets have reported that many of those listed have no connection to the student movement. In fact, our own findings revealed that some Awami League activists were also included, suggesting a politically motivated manipulation of the data. The U.N.’s selective timeframe and reliance on evidence controlled by the Yunus regime have produced not a fact-finding mission but a document that glosses over ongoing persecution, arbitrary detentions, and the complete breakdown of law and order. Every incident of violence deserves proper investigation, regardless of political affiliation. Yet the U.N. report has been used to legitimise an undemocratic regime, while denying justice to the 3,000 policemen, 500 Awami League activists, and thousands of religious minorities who were the victims of horrendous acts of violence. This incomplete and politically convenient narrative does a cruel disservice to all Bangladeshis who continue to suffer under a government that came to power through violence and maintains it through fear. Our stance has always been consistent: every death that occurred during the July–August period must be investigated impartially, and anyone found responsible should be held accountable. We took steps in that direction by establishing a judicial commission, which was later dissolved by the Yunus administration, and no alternative body was ever formed to conduct an unbiased inquiry.”
Addressing allegations of enforced disappearances and torture through a facility known as “Aynaghar” (House of Mirrors), Arafat declared: “‘The house of mirrors,’ or ‘Aynaghar,’ does not exist. We unequivocally deny its existence. We strongly believe it is something the media has picked up and perpetuated as illegitimate propaganda. If enforced disappearances and torture of opposition activists did occur, there is no evidence they were approved, directed, or even known by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina or her Cabinet. Any such detentions would more plausibly stem from internal military dynamics. The Awami League government was aware of a joint counterterrorism interrogation centre within the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence, but it neither authorised nor benefited from any clandestine detention sites. There was no political decision to ‘disappear’ people, and no clear political incentive for keeping individuals in secret detention. Bangladesh’s military-linked intelligence agencies operate with minimal civilian oversight, far less than, for instance, their U.S. counterparts. With no parliamentary review of their budgets or activities, they exercise considerable autonomy, which creates obvious risks, including opaque detention practices. For this reason, the existence of secret facilities outside civilian purview cannot be fully ruled out, and the military should be held accountable through impartial investigation. If credible inquiries confirm enforced disappearances, I would unequivocally condemn them.”
Liberation War heroes languish in jail due to political vendetta and Pakistanization
Liberation War monuments lie in ruins as Yunus rehabilitates razakars
Jamaat resists formal apology for 1971 atrocities amid warming ties with Pakistan
Finally, on Hasina’s potential return, Arafat stated: “Sheikh Hasina’s return depends on the restoration of constitutional order and the genuine rule of law. Only when constitutional governance returns, when we see real trials with real evidence before real judges, and when democratic and participatory elections are held, will she be able to return.”
The former premier also expressed resolve to return to Bangladesh and face the cases, but only when the rule of law is ensured.
Responding to Dhaka’s calls for her extradition, Sheikh Hasina recently told News18: “Any extradition request should follow the law, not politics. I respect the legal process, but such requests must be handled transparently and must safeguard the rights of the accused. My message to the authorities in Dhaka is simple: pursue justice, but do so in a way that heals the country rather than deepens divisions. Reconciliation requires impartial investigations, not victor’s justice, and national healing can only begin when courts are beyond political control.”
Bengali 
English