Photo: Collected
Former prime minister Sheikh Hasina has been sentenced to death in a case over killings during the July–August movement. She fled to India after losing power in the mass uprising during the anti-discrimination movement. Trials and investigations of several more cases against her are under way at the tribunal, and more than 500 cases have been filed against her across the country.
Lawyers have recently voiced mixed reactions over whether she can return home and legally challenge the death sentence through an appeal.
International Crimes Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Md Aminul Islam told Ajker Patrika that the Bangladesh government has no legal scope to issue a passport to Sheikh Hasina, who is in India. To return, she would have to come under the extradition treaty. Although she had 30 days after the verdict was delivered, she did not appeal, and she has no legal scope to file an appeal in future either. According to the chief prosecutor, her sentence will be carried out as soon as she returns home, and there is no alternative to this.
On the time limit for appeals, Section 21(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 states that an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of conviction and sentence, or of acquittal or sentence. No appeal will be entertained after this period expires.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Manzill Murshid, however, holds a different view. He said that if someone wants to come home and face a case, they should be given a travel pass. He also noted that there is no precedent in Bangladesh of a death sentence being carried out without going to the Appellate Division. He argued that under Article 104 of the Constitution, the Appellate Division has the power to issue any order necessary for doing complete justice, and that condoning delay falls solely within that division’s jurisdiction. He therefore believes that demanding execution without allowing scope for appeal amounts to bypassing the law.
Article 104 of the Constitution states that the Appellate Division shall have power to issue such directions, orders, decrees or writs as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, including orders for securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document.
On 17 November last year, the International Crimes Tribunal sentenced former prime minister Sheikh Hasina and former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death in a crimes against humanity case over killings across the country during the anti-discrimination movement. It ordered all their assets confiscated in favour of the state and given as compensation to the families of the July–August martyrs. The case’s five charges were split into two parts, with a death sentence handed down on one and imprisonment until death on the other. After the full text of the verdict was published, the prosecution went to the Appellate Division on 15 December last year seeking to convert the imprisonment until death into a death sentence. That petition is yet to be disposed of.
Referring to the petition pending with the Appellate Division, the chief prosecutor said Sheikh Hasina has already been sentenced to death; a hearing on the petition is not essential for carrying out the sentence. It can even be withdrawn at any time if necessary. He also remarked that Sheikh Hasina will not get the benefit of the complete justice principle under Article 104 of the Constitution.
Earlier, in 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal sentenced Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to death on charges of crimes against humanity committed in 1971; he was a fugitive at the time. After returning home following the fall of the Awami League government in 2024, he filed an appeal on 6 July this year along with a petition for condonation of delay. He also sought a stay on the tribunal’s death sentence until the appeal is disposed of. After passing through the chamber court, the appeal has come up for hearing before a regular bench of the Appellate Division, but it is yet to be disposed of.
Attorney General Barrister Ruhul Quddus Kajal told Ajker Patrika that if Sheikh Hasina wants to return home, she must do so in compliance with the law. In his view, the legal position of a convicted person has already become clear in the case of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, as his appeal has not yet been admitted.
A letter has already been sent to the home ministry for implementing the verdict on confiscating the property of Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal. The letter, signed by the chief prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal, was sent to the ministry’s senior secretary on 3 November.
Another senior Supreme Court lawyer, Motaher Hossain Saju, told Ajker Patrika that there is the precedent of the opportunity the government gave Maulana Abul Kalam Azad under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So if Sheikh Hasina wants to return, she too should be given that opportunity. If she is able to return, she will also get the chance to appeal; however, whether leave to appeal is granted is a matter for the Appellate Division.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir, on the other hand, said that apart from the extradition treaty, there is no route open for Sheikh Hasina to come home. He explained that if someone’s passport is cancelled, they have to appeal; they cannot apply afresh for a passport. Besides, a fugitive accused cannot file any application under the law. He also noted that Sheikh Hasina is in India on humanitarian asylum.
Citing the example of Syria, Shishir Manir said that when Bashar al-Assad left the country in a mass uprising, Russia gave him asylum. When he was later sentenced to death, the Syrian government asked Russia to hand him over, but Russia did not agree. Here too, although the Bangladesh government has made a request, the Indian government has not taken any decision. In such a situation, he said, someone granted asylum on humanitarian grounds cannot take any decision on their own.
Article 6(1)(c) of the Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 states that a passport or travel document may be refused if the applicant has, within the five years immediately preceding the application, been convicted by a court in Bangladesh of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years.
Background
According to a Risingbd report of 17 April, Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that day that India was examining a formal request for Sheikh Hasina’s extradition through established legal and judicial channels.
According to a Dhaka Times report of 17 July, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said at the time that a decision on the matter would be taken in light of the relevant legal and judicial processes.
Sources
Background sources: Risingbd, 17 April 2026; Dhaka Times, 17 July 2026
