A scathing legal analysis by Barrister M.R. Khan, an esteemed international human rights lawyer based in the UK, has exposed profound procedural irregularities, due process violations, and evident political bias in the controversial Purbachal Plot Allocation Case verdict against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her family members.
The trial, conducted in absentia without proper notice to the accused—including UK nationals Tulip Siddiq, Azmina Siddiq, and Redwan Mujib Siddiq—stands as a glaring miscarriage of justice, breaching both Bangladeshi constitutional safeguards and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The verdict, delivered amid the turbulent post-2024 political landscape following Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, has drawn international condemnation for its apparent weaponisation of the judiciary against political opponents. Barrister Khan’s comprehensive report, titled Legal Shortcomings on Purbachal Plot Case, meticulously dissects the proceedings, concluding that they amount to a “procedural nullity” and an assault on fundamental fair trial principles.
At the heart of the critique is the trial’s in absentia nature, which proceeded without any verifiable notice to Sheikh Hasina, who has been in exile in India since the violent uprising on August 5, 2024. Her known addresses in Bangladesh were either uninhabited or destroyed, rendering any purported service ineffective.
Purbachal Plot Case: Sheikh Hasina, family term verdict politically motivated
Purbachal Plot Case: Sheikh Hasina exposes hypocrisy of the accusers
Sajeeb Wazed bins graft charges, condemns farcical trial for Purbachal plots
Under Bangladeshi criminal procedure, absentia trials are only permissible if the accused is deemed to have absconded or concealed themselves, and even then, constructive notice—such as publication in national newspapers—must be ensured. No such evidence exists here, Barrister Khan argues, leaving the accused without a meaningful opportunity to participate or defend themselves.
This oversight extends to Hasina’s family, including British citizens Tulip Siddiq (a UK Member of Parliament) and her siblings, who were neither present in Bangladesh during the alleged offenses nor properly notified. Efforts by Tulip Siddiq’s legal team to engage with Bangladeshi authorities, including the Anti-Corruption Commission, went unanswered, denying them access to essential documents like summons or charge sheets.
“The absence of formal notification and genuine access to defense counsel undermines the very foundation of justice,” Barrister Khan states, citing precedents from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases like Medenica v. Switzerland and Neziraj v. Germany, which mandate strict safeguards for absentia proceedings.
Due process violations are rampant, according to the analysis, directly contravening Article 14 of the ICCPR, to which Bangladesh is a signatory. This article guarantees a fair and public hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, and the right to be tried in one’s presence with adequate defense facilities.
Awami League condemns sentence of Sheikh Hasina, family in fabricated plot cases
Sheikh Hasina’s Legacy: 15 years of transformative development
Tulip Siddiq slams ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’ verdict in absentia
Instead, the verdict inverts the presumption of innocence by imputing guilt based on familial ties rather than individualised evidence—a tactic Barrister Khan labels as “criminal liability by bloodline,” echoing violations of Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Under domestic law, the proceedings flout Bangladesh’s Constitution, including Article 31 (right to protection of the law), Article 32 (right to life and liberty), and Article 35(3) (right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal).
Barrister Khan emphasises that these protections mirror ICCPR standards, yet were ignored, with no opportunity for the accused to challenge evidence, present witnesses, or appoint informed counsel. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers further underscore the right to chosen legal representation, which was effectively nullified here.
Political bias permeates the case, Barrister Khan asserts, pointing to its timing amid selective prosecutions against Awami League affiliates following Hasina’s fall. The tribunal’s impartiality is compromised in a context of regime change, violating ICCPR requirements for an independent judiciary.
Prominent UK legal figures, including former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland KC, former Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC, and Lady Cherie Blair KC, have echoed these concerns, describing the trial as “artificial and contrived,” eroding public confidence and international standards.
Chaos, Capitulation, Corruption: Yunus’ 559-day jihadist nightmare
Faiz Ahmad Taiyeb resigns amid swirling corruption scandals, flees Bangladesh
Sheikh Hasina slams Tarique Rahman for hiding massive corruption
Jurisdictional flaws add another layer of invalidity, particularly for the UK nationals involved. With no extraterritorial basis under Bangladeshi law for prosecuting non-resident foreigners absent during the events, and lacking an extradition treaty with the UK, the court’s authority is questionable.
Barrister Khan warns that enforcing such a verdict could invite diplomatic tensions and further highlight Bangladesh’s judicial overreach.
The analysis concludes that the verdict exemplifies a “classic miscarriage of justice,” urging its nullification to restore judicial integrity. Without rights to a retrial upon return—as mandated internationally—the proceedings perpetuate stigma and impunity.
Senior journalist and political observer Probir Kumar Sarker said that as Bangladesh navigates its post-interim era under the BNP-led government, this case serves as a stark reminder of the perils of politicised justice, potentially undermining the nation’s commitment to democratic norms and human rights.
He called for an independent review, with Barrister Khan advocating adherence to IBAHRI recommendations to prevent the judiciary from becoming a tool of vengeance.
Bengali 
English