Exile, extradition and erosion of democracy in Bangladesh: The politics behind Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence

The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Dhaka sentenced the exiled Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia on 17 November 2025. The verdict underlines her “crimes against humanity” with reference to her crackdown on the students’ protest in 2024, who demanded the overturning of the Supreme Court verdict to restore quota to the freedom fighters of the Bangladeshi Liberation War in 1971.

The Supreme Court verdict was against the political decision of the Sheikh Hasina government not to provide a quota for the descendants of freedom fighters in the public sector. The irony of the matter is that it was her government’s decision not to give a quota to the family members of the freedom fighters. What could have been a protest against the Supreme Court became, farcically, an anti-government and pro-democracy mobilisation.

The protest was amplified to the extent of calling it a July Revolution. It was expected that she would not have maintained law and order and would have stood by as the anarchy violently enveloped the country. Her kinetic reaction to douse the flame of revolution was legally interpreted as “crimes against humanity” by the court, and she was sentenced to death. Therefore, the juridical duplicity becomes evident. Political and juridical complicity needs no hair-splitting in understanding its role.

Sheikh Hasina rejects the verdict against her as ‘biased and politically motivated’ and calls the tribunal a ‘kangaroo court’. These developments indicate the awful condition of the country. The leader of the Awami League lives in exile in India, and the Awami League faces political ostracism, being banned and restricted from participating in electoral activities in Bangladesh.

The much-needed election to restore democracy in Bangladesh is nowhere to be found in the itinerary. The unelected group, through force and coercion, runs the country. In the absence of a democratic polity, the death sentence of a democratically elected leader shows glaringly the game of the unelected. She is sentenced to death in absentia, with no scope for legally defending her case.

The politico-legal drama does not end there. The unelected caretaker government has sent a diplomatic request to India to extradite Sheikh Hasina. It has unleashed a legal battle between the two countries. It is a potential diversionary tactic employed by Muhammad Yunus and his cohorts and collaborators to distract the people from more pressing issues, including the election, economy, radicalisation, and democracy.

International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)

The ICT was established in 2010 under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973. Its objective is to punish the perpetrators of crimes in the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. The case of Sheikh Hasina is totally different and does not come under the purview of ICT jurisdiction. When no democratically elected government is in place, such changes in the scope of jurisdiction of the ICT are unwarranted. It is a domestic juridical body. It is not affiliated with any international legal institution. It is solely confined to Bangladesh. The judges, prosecutors, and investigators are Bangladeshi nationals, appointed under the purview of the Bangladeshi judicial framework.

The ICT’s probity, fairness, impartiality, and procedural standards have been questioned by international observers and human rights organisations. It is alleged that it has become a puppet institution for politically motivated persecution. The case of Sheikh Hasina is the most notable example of the ICT’s shaky standing and legal disingenuity. Given the ICT’s questionable reputation as a legal institution, the verdict of a death sentence for a democratically elected Prime Minister underlines a politically motivated decision to embroil the country in a state of anarchy.

India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty

The ICT may be a kangaroo court. Bangladesh has sent an extradition request to India. The Ministry of External Affairs will examine the matter and its legal recourse. Here, the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty assumes significance. The treaty was signed in 2013. It clarifies the legal framework for the reciprocal extradition process of offenders in the event of crime and terrorism to ensure a safe neighbourhood. Article 6 of the treaty refers to the ‘Political Offence Exception’. The exception in this category includes offences related to political character. Article 8 refers to ‘grounds for refusal of extradition’.

Extradition can be refused on the grounds of unjust extradition involving oppression against the person concerned, triviality of offence, or a long period having passed between the time of the offence committed and the time of extradition. These provisions will, of course, be seriously examined. India is a mature democracy. It will consider the matter seriously and will provide her with the required legal protection. The verdict also ensures the travesty of justice and judicial subservience to political whimsicality. The agency and autonomy of judicial institutions are severely compromised. She should have been given the necessary legal scope to defend her case.

The extradition episode is another gimmick. It is tactfully implanted to attract global attention. It is a distraction tactic to stoke religious nationalism to divert the people from thoughts about the urgency of the election. Muhammad Yunus slowly releases these soft and non-kinetic weapons from his narrative armoury to keep the conditions tense. It goes without saying that the death sentence and extradition request are mere hogwash. They are designed to bring Bangladesh to the global spotlight through op-eds, podcasts, and social media reactions.

The groundswell against Muhammad Yunus has already begun. The proposed election in 2026 may reduce him to a political non-entity. His backdoor entry through students’ protest is not a testament to democracy. It is a travesty of democracy. If the election is further deferred, it will exacerbate the already tense political situation in Bangladesh. The recycling of the issues about Sheikh Hasina is engineered to conceal Muhammad Yunus’ incompetence and failure. Bangladesh has created enough geopolitical tension in the neighbourhood. It is difficult to get back on track.

Yunus’ camaraderie with Pakistan, China and the US and doing things constantly detrimental to Indian interests has ruined relations with India. He suffers from Stockholm syndrome. He pushes Bangladesh into Pakistan’s control. He paradoxically invites his own doom and that of Bangladesh. The octogenarian’s madness shows no sign of a method. It is pure madness and incurable madness. The verdict of death on Sheikh Hasina illustrates this. His constant provocation abnormally shrinks the scope of friendship with India. The episode of Sheikh Hasina’s extradition adds to the catalogue of provocations.

(Dr. Jajati K. Pattnaik is a Professor at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Dr. Chandan K. Panda is an Assistant Professor at Rajiv Gandhi University [A Central University], Itanagar. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)