Death Sentence for Sheikh Hasina: Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal Concludes Contentious Trial
Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal delivered a landmark verdict on November 17, 2025, sentencing ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death for crimes against humanity in connection with the violent suppression of student-led protests that toppled her government in August 2024. The three-member tribunal, presided over by Justice Md Golam Mortuza, pronounced the judgment after a months-long trial that concluded with closing arguments on October 23. The verdict, contained in a comprehensive 453-page ruling and detailed charges spanning 8,747 pages, was broadcast live on Bangladesh Television (BTV) from the International Crimes Tribunal courtroom in Dhaka, marking a significant moment in the nation’s legal proceedings against the former leader.
The tribunal found Hasina guilty on three counts of crimes against humanity: incitement through provocative speech, ordering the deployment of helicopters, drones, and lethal weapons against protesters, and orchestrating the murder of unarmed students. According to the court’s findings, as recorded in Bangladesh government records, “Accused prime minister Sheikh Hasina committed crimes against humanity by her incitement order and also failure to take preventive and punitive measures” under the first charge, while under the second charge, “Accused Sheikh Hasina committed one count of crimes against humanity by her order to use drones, helicopters and lethal weapons”. The tribunal also held Hasina responsible for inciting extrajudicial killings carried out by law enforcement agencies and for her failure to take punitive measures against perpetrators. During the verdict reading, the judges emphasized that “the evidences against the accused are so strong that if the case is pursued against the accused in all the international crimes tribunal, the ‘maximum punishment’ will be awarded to the accused”.
The charges against Hasina emerged from the violent events of July and August 2024, when what became known as the July Uprising evolved from civil service quota protests into a nationwide movement demanding her resignation. According to United Nations human rights office estimates cited during the trial, up to 1,400 people were killed during the government’s security crackdown, with an additional 25,000 injured. Bangladesh’s interim government health adviser reported that more than 800 people were killed and approximately 14,000 were injured during this period. The tribunal heard testimony from 54 prosecution witnesses, including the father of slain protester Abu Sayed, National Citizens’ Party Convener Nahid Islam, and journalist Mahmudur Rahman, who detailed the state’s response to the student-led movement. Evidence presented to the court included audio recordings of alleged conversations involving Sheikh Hasina, documentary evidence, CCTV footage, drone recordings, and eyewitness accounts documenting specific incidents of violence.
Among the evidence presented was a leaked phone call from July 18, 2024, in which Hasina was reportedly heard ordering security personnel to “shoot” protesters “wherever they were found” while authorising the “use of lethal weapons” against the student-led demonstrations. The tribunal specifically referenced the police operation in Dhaka’s Jatrabari on August 5, where at least 52 protesters were killed, with footage showing them shot while fleeing through highways and alleyways. The court also examined records of Hasina’s conversation with the Dhaka University Vice-Chancellor regarding orders to kill protesting students. Additionally, an audio tape surfaced in 2025 where Hasina claimed she had “a licence to kill 227 people” because 227 cases were registered against her, as reported by news agency ANI. These materials formed the basis for the tribunal’s finding that Hasina had consistently ordered or incited violence against civilian protesters.
The trial proceeded despite Hasina’s absence from Bangladesh. On June 17, the tribunal published notices in two national dailies ordering Hasina and her co-accused, former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, to surrender by June 24 under Rule 31 of the ICT Rules of Procedure (Amendment 2025). When they failed to comply, the tribunal proceeded with trial proceedings in absentia under Section 10A of the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973. Hasina, now 78 years old, fled to India on August 5, 2024, the same day she was ousted from office, and has remained in self-imposed exile in New Delhi since. She was assigned a state-appointed defence lawyer, Md Amir Hossain, who argued that the charges had not been proven and sought acquittal. However, the tribunal rejected these arguments, with the defence permitted to argue for three days while prosecutors presented their case over five days, utilizing documentaries, audio recordings, and witness testimonies.
The tribunal’s decision to sentence Hasina to death represented the maximum punishment prescribed under Bangladeshi law. In her response to the verdict, delivered through a statement issued from India, Hasina declared the tribunal process “biased and politically motivated,” claiming “the verdicts announced against me have been made by a rigged tribunal established and presided over by an unelected government with no democratic mandate”. She rejected the International Crimes Tribunal’s allegations of human rights abuses and stated that while her government had lost control of the situation, the events could not be characterized as a “premeditated assault on citizens”. Hasina further alleged that the interim government lacked legitimacy and that the push for her death sentence represented a deliberate attempt by hardline officials to remove her from politics and weaken her Awami League party. She expressed willingness to face charges before what she termed a “legitimate court,” suggesting she would stand trial under international supervision “even at the International Criminal Court” in The Hague.
The tribunal’s verdict extended to Hasina’s co-accused. Former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan, also tried in absentia, was found guilty on four counts of crimes against humanity and similarly sentenced to death. Former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah, who appeared before the tribunal in person and pleaded guilty, received a notably lighter sentence of five years’ imprisonment. The tribunal distinguished his case from the others, observing that his full disclosure and cooperation as an approver warranted a “lenient sentence” compared to the capital punishment imposed on Hasina and Kamal. According to government records, Al-Mamun was described as the first accused to become a state witness since the International Crimes Tribunal’s establishment in 2010.
Bangladesh’s Attorney General, Md Asaduzzaman, publicly praised the tribunal’s decision, stating: “The verdict pays the dues to the martyrs, to the country, to all citizens, to democracy, the constitution, the rule of law, and to our obligation towards the next generation”. This official government endorsement reflected the interim administration’s position on holding Hasina accountable for the violence of July-August 2024. The prosecution, led by Chief Prosecutor Mohammad Tajul Islam, had characterized Hasina as the “mastermind and principal architect” of the alleged atrocities during the protests, seeking the death penalty for all three accused. The tribunal granted this request for Hasina and Kamal but exercised discretion in sentencing Al-Mamun.
The International Crimes Tribunal, which has jurisdiction over such cases, was originally established by Hasina herself in 2009 to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by Pakistani forces during Bangladesh’s 1971 war for independence. Under that mandate, six senior leaders of the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and one leader from former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party were executed following their convictions in previous proceedings. However, following Hasina’s fall from power, the reconstituted bench shifted its focus to alleged violence and human rights abuses during her 15 years in office, particularly the killings during the July 2024 uprising. The formal charge documents submitted against Hasina on June 1, 2025, consisted of detailed allegations concerning incitement of violence, murder, abetment, torture and inhumane acts, extermination of student protesters, and orchestrated killings.
The verdict has significant political implications for Bangladesh. Under the International Crimes Tribunals Act of 1973, a convicted person retains the right to appeal directly to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Section 21(1). However, legal provisions require that a convicted person surrender before filing an appeal within 30 days. Bangladesh’s interim government, led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus, who assumed the chief advisor position following Hasina’s ouster on August 8, 2024, has sought her extradition from India. The Ministry of External Affairs of India responded to the verdict by stating that “India has noted the verdict announced by the ‘International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh’ concerning former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina” and that “India remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability”. Bangladesh’s foreign ministry requested that India block what it termed the “notorious fugitive” Hasina from communicating with journalists and the international media.
The tribunal’s conclusion of this case comes approximately three months before Bangladesh’s scheduled general elections in February 2026, the first national polls since Hasina’s government’s collapse. The Awami League party, which Hasina led for decades, has been barred from participating in the upcoming elections by the interim government. The conviction marks a pivotal moment in post-August 2024 Bangladesh, establishing through the nation’s domestic legal system a formal determination that the former Prime Minister bears criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity committed while suppressing the democratic uprising that ultimately ended her governance.