Death Penalty Looms: Sheikh Hasina Awaits Verdict as Bangladesh Holds Its Breath

By Ephraim Agbo 

On the morning the International Crimes Tribunal in Dhaka prepares to hand down a verdict in the case against ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina, the world is watching a drama that has already reshaped Bangladesh’s politics, economy and regional relationships. The charges—crimes against humanity for the brutal suppression of student-led protests in mid-2024—are the culmination of a year-long spiral that saw mass mobilization, thousands wounded and, according to UN investigators and other bodies, as many as 1,400 people killed during the uprising and crackdown.

This is not merely a courtroom story. It is a test of whether a traumatized society can pursue justice without becoming entangled in victor’s justice; whether the domestic legal process can meet international fair-trial standards; and whether Bangladesh can stabilise politically and economically while navigating difficult diplomatic terrain—especially with its powerful neighbour, India. Below I unpack the evidence, the legal and moral questions, the political calculations, and what the verdict could mean for Bangladesh and the region.

What the prosecution says — and what independent investigators found

Prosecutors allege that Hasina, her then-home minister and some senior security officials orchestrated a “systematic attack” on demonstrators last July after protests over a politicised quota system for public-sector jobs escalated into nationwide unrest. The tribunal has sought the death penalty for the main accused. Prosecutors point to internal orders and operational patterns of security forces as evidence of coordinated state violence.

That narrative has been reinforced by international scrutiny. A UN rights office report and investigations by NGOs documented widespread and brutal repression—excessive use of force, credible video evidence of police shootings, and patterns suggesting command responsibility at the top. The UN’s February report (and reporting that followed) estimated a shockingly high death toll and catalogued abuses that, if proven in court, could reach the threshold of crimes against humanity.

Due process concerns and the optics of in-absentia trials

The tribunal is trying Hasina in absentia—she fled to India in August 2024—and Dhaka has formally sought her extradition. In high-stakes political prosecutions, trials in absentia and aggressive sentencing limit the perceived legitimacy of proceedings among international observers. Human-rights groups have repeatedly urged Dhaka to pause capital prosecutions until legal safeguards and impartiality are beyond doubt; HRW and Amnesty stressed the need for a moratorium on the death penalty and for legal reforms to guarantee fair process. Those calls reflect a broader anxiety: even where atrocities occurred, domestic prosecutions must adhere to international due-process norms or risk being dismissed abroad as retributive politics.

Two dynamics make this especially fraught. First, the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus has stacked its legitimacy on accountability and reform; successfully prosecuting abuses is politically attractive. Second, the same government faces accusations—by critics and human-rights monitors—of moving fast on sweeping legislation and political bans that could be used to consolidate power. The mix of transitional justice and political expediency creates the impression—warranted or not—of selective accountability.

Evidence and the burden of proof

A striking element of recent reporting has been the emergence of new material—audio recordings, video footage and forensic reconstructions—that human-rights investigators cite to link orders given by senior officials to deadly force on the streets. If authenticated and fairly tested in court, such material can be damning. Yet credibility depends on transparent chain-of-custody, the opportunity for defence counsel to challenge methods and witnesses, and an independent judiciary—conditions many international observers say are presently fragile in Dhaka.

Regional geopolitics: why India matters

Extradition is the immediate diplomatic hinge. Hasina’s refuge in India complicates matters. New Delhi must weigh treaty obligations, rule-of-law concerns, domestic politics and its strategic relationship with Bangladesh. Historically, India has balanced cooperation and caution: it benefits from a stable, friendly Dhaka but is wary of appearing to hand over a high-profile political figure if legal standards are contested. Bangladesh’s renewed diplomatic pressure after a conviction could strain ties and push the bilateral relationship into a public, transactional phase.

The regional stakes go beyond India. Western capitals and multilateral lenders are watching: their willingness to support Dhaka economically—through investment, loans and trade—depends in part on political stability and respect for human rights. Countries and institutions will make sober calculations about engagement if the trial is seen as fair versus punitive.

Economic fallout and the investment climate

Bangladesh’s macro story before the crisis was mixed: impressive export growth driven by garments but persistent structural problems—high debt, low wages, and weak governance in parts of the state. Political violence and legal unpredictability are poison for investor confidence. The interim government has taken steps to stabilise reserves and re-engage with multilateral lenders, but the risk is that continued unrest or perceptions of legal weaponisation will depress foreign direct investment and slow a fragile recovery.

Political consequences and the roadmap to elections

The trial must be read alongside the political calendar. The interim authority has pledged elections and reform (including a “July Charter” of institutional changes). How the government manages the trial’s aftermath—ensuring security, protecting civil liberties, and delivering credible electoral rules—will determine whether Bangladesh emerges more democratic or drifts into cycles of reprisal and counter-reprisal. If Hasina’s supporters mobilise to disrupt elections, the country risks renewed instability; if the state is perceived to have used justice selectively, opposition constituencies may reject the post-Hasina order as illegitimate.

Two dangers—and one slim hope

There are two immediate dangers. First, escalation: an extraordinary sentence could catalyse violent protest from Hasina’s base and provoke regional diplomatic flare-ups. Second, delegitimisation: perceived procedural shortcuts risk making accountability look like revenge, which corrodes trust in institutions long after any sentence is served.

The slim hope lies in an outcome that combines accountability with procedural fairness and institutional reform. A transparent verdict—firmly grounded in verifiable evidence, accompanied by robust protections for the accused’s legal rights, and followed by tangible reforms to policing, oversight and electoral governance—could set Bangladesh on a path to genuine restraint and renewal. Transitional justice, if handled with restraint and lawfulness, can be a stabilising force rather than the reverse.

What to watch next

1. The wording of the judgment—does the court set out a clear chain of command and factual bases?
2. Extradition diplomacy—will India respond to Dhaka’s requests, and under what legal assurances?
3. Domestic reaction—how quickly do protests or counter-protests grow, and how does the interim government respond?
4. International response—statements from the UN, EU, US and major lenders will signal the global community’s tolerance for the trial’s conduct and outcome.

---

In the end, Bangladesh’s moment of judgment is more than a legal resolution; it is a societal test. The country’s future—whether it becomes an exemplar of accountable democracy or drifts toward cycles of retribution—will depend on whether justice is delivered fairly, whether institutions can be strengthened, and whether political actors choose compromise over conflagration. The world will be watching not just for a verdict, but for what follows.