On Monday, November 17, 2025, Bangladesh was thrust into turmoil as its ousted Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, was sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Dhaka. The tribunal, a domestic war crimes court originally established in 2009 to prosecute atrocities from the 1971 independence war, found Hasina guilty of ordering a brutal crackdown on a student-led uprising during July and August 2024. The verdict, delivered in absentia, also included a life sentence for crimes against humanity related to the same events. Hasina, 78, had fled to India in August 2024, and her home minister, Asaduzzaman Khan, received a similar death sentence.
The trial and subsequent verdict have sent shockwaves through Bangladesh and the wider region. According to a United Nations report cited by CBC and NPR, up to 1,400 people were killed and thousands more injured—many by gunfire from security forces—in what is now considered the worst violence in Bangladesh since its 1971 war of independence. The crackdown began as protests over government job allocations, but quickly morphed into a broader anti-government movement, culminating in Hasina’s dramatic resignation and escape by helicopter.
The ICT’s ruling, broadcast live and lasting several hours, was met with both celebration in the courtroom and outrage among Hasina’s supporters. In her absence, Hasina was represented by a state-appointed defense counsel. However, she and her party, the Awami League, have denounced the proceedings as a sham. In a statement sent to media outlets and relayed by CBC and NPR, Hasina declared, "The verdicts announced against me have been made by a rigged tribunal established and presided over by an unelected government with no democratic mandate. ... I wholly deny the accusations that have been made against me in the ICT. I mourn all of the deaths that occurred in July and August of last year, on both sides of the political divide. But neither I nor other political leaders ordered the killing of protestors. ... I was given no fair chance to defend myself in court, nor even to have lawyers of my own choice represent me in absentia."
The current interim government, led by Nobel Peace laureate Muhammad Yunus, has governed since Hasina’s flight. Yunus, however, is not an elected leader, and the legitimacy of both his administration and the tribunal has come under fierce scrutiny. Hasina’s Awami League party has been banned from contesting the upcoming parliamentary elections, expected in February 2026, under an anti-terrorism law—a move widely criticized as undemocratic. Many top Awami League leaders are either in hiding in New Delhi or imprisoned in Bangladesh, and the party’s grassroots have been largely subdued by fears of further crackdowns.
Security in Bangladesh has been tight. In the days leading up to the verdict, at least 30 crude bomb explosions and 26 vehicles were torched across the country, according to CBC, though, remarkably, there were no reported casualties. Paramilitary forces and police have maintained a heavy presence in Dhaka and other major cities, especially around government buildings and the tribunal complex. The streets of Dhaka have witnessed sporadic protests, including calls to gherao (encircle) the Indian High Commission, with demonstrators demanding either the return of Hasina or the departure of Indian diplomats.
India’s role in this unfolding drama is pivotal. As reported by The New Indian Express, India has categorically stated it will never extradite Hasina back to Bangladesh, a stance rooted in both strategic and historical considerations. After Hasina’s ouster, Bangladesh has seen a warming of relations with Pakistan—once its arch-enemy and India’s regional rival. Dhaka has waived scrutiny of imports from Pakistan and welcomed high-profile military and political visits from Islamabad. This shift has sounded alarm bells in New Delhi, where policymakers fear the erosion of Indian influence in a country traditionally seen as a regional ally and buffer.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs issued a cautious statement late on Monday, noting the verdict and affirming, "As a close neighbour, India remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability in that country. We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end." Yet, the underlying message was clear: India will not hand over Hasina, who remains a political refugee in New Delhi.
The tribunal itself has been a lightning rod for criticism since its inception. Human Rights Watch and other organizations have long questioned its adherence to international legal standards. On Monday, Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia deputy director for Human Rights Watch, posted, "Bangladesh should ensure a credible justice system, abolish capital punishment." Chief Prosecutor Mohammad Tajul Islam, speaking to NPR, defended the tribunal’s process: "Our tribunal was developed in line with the Nuremberg trials. It has met all international standards. No one can point to anywhere where those standards have not been met. Their defense lawyer was given enough time to come up with the response. He could not take instruction from the accused as they are fugitives. If they had been present, they could have given their testimonies and provided further witnesses, and they would have been given further time as per the law."
Yet, for many observers—both inside Bangladesh and abroad—the verdict reeks of political revenge rather than impartial justice. Naomi Hossain, a professor at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, told NPR, "After the uprising, we might have had a process of justice and peace and reconciliation. We didn’t have that. We’ve had the same as before. We call it accountability, but it’s more like political revenge." She added, "What really matters is, many people think that this is a kind of justice and that no other kind of justice was going to be achieved."
Bangladesh’s political landscape has been transformed by these events. The Awami League, the country’s oldest and once-dominant party, is now sidelined. The upcoming elections, if held without the Awami League’s participation, risk being dismissed as farcical by both domestic and international observers. Ironically, Hasina herself once held elections boycotted by her main rival, the Bangladesh National Party, and declared them legitimate—a historical echo that has not gone unnoticed.
The country’s economy, once buoyed by years of rapid growth under Hasina’s rule, has faltered since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, leading to a $4.7 billion IMF bailout in 2024. Political instability now threatens to further undermine economic prospects, as investors and ordinary citizens alike brace for potential unrest.
As Bangladesh stands at a crossroads, the future remains deeply uncertain. The death sentence against Hasina—whether viewed as justice served or vengeance enacted—has set the stage for a period of heightened tension and instability, with regional implications that stretch far beyond Dhaka’s city limits.