Human rights lawyers condemn the trial process against Sheikh Hasina and Tulip

International human rights lawyers have strongly criticised and condemned the judicial process that led to the sentencing of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her niece, British MP Tulip Siddiq.

In a statement, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) said that ensuring justice for serious crimes and human rights violations committed under previous administrations is essential. However, such efforts must fully adhere to internationally recognised fair trial standards. IBAHRI reiterated its position of opposing the death penalty in all circumstances.

“The recent trials appear to fall short of accepted legal standards, signalling a worrying trend of democratic backsliding. They reflect a justice system at risk of being used as an instrument of political rivalry,” the statement read.

Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death for alleged crimes against humanity committed during the July–August 2024 movement. Additionally, in a plot corruption case involving Sheikh Rehana, a court sentenced her daughter, British Labour MP Tulip Siddiq, to two years in prison. These cases proceeded in the absence of the accused members of the Hasina family.

In the plot corruption case, Tulip was accused of influencing her aunt Sheikh Hasina to help her mother, Rehana, obtain a government plot. Tulip, who earlier resigned from her role as the UK’s Minister for the City of London amid criticism over a gifted apartment, has consistently denied all allegations.

Following the student-led uprising, the Awami League government fell on 5 August 2024, after which Sheikh Hasina fled to India. Her sister Sheikh Rehana accompanied her, while Tulip remained in the United Kingdom.

The trials proceeded by declaring them “absconding,” leaving no opportunity for defence lawyers to represent them.

Reacting to the verdict, Tulip Siddiq said, “This entire process has been flawed from start to finish and is nothing but a farce. The outcome of this ‘kangaroo court’ was predictable, and it is utterly baseless.”

According to coverage by international legal observers, IBAHRI noted that an international legal team representing Sheikh Hasina had highlighted serious weaknesses in the trial process: failure to formally notify the accused before charges were framed, denial of the right to appoint lawyers of their choice, and a state-appointed lawyer who had no communication with the defendant.

“A death sentence delivered through such a judicial process does not meet international fair trial standards. Its execution would constitute a violation of the right to life, as it would occur without due process,” IBAHRI stated.

Regarding Tulip Siddiq’s case, IBAHRI Vice Chair Mark Stephens said, “Reports indicate harassment and intimidation of her legal counsel, which strikes at the heart of the right to a fair trial and undermines the rule of law in Bangladesh. Such practices reflect a severe abuse of state authority within the justice system.”

He added that the interim government must ensure that legal professionals can work safely and independently, and that genuine commitment to justice—not political retaliation—must guide all legal proceedings.

The organisation also called for a formal moratorium on executions and urged the eventual abolition of the death penalty.