N※N

Sheikh Hasina Uses Tribunal Death Penalty as Political Weapon

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. -tribunal-death-penalty-as-political-weapon.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Monday, November 17th 2025 at 11:26 GMT by ThePrint

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-17 224 x 224 / 14330 Bytes

2025-11-17 251 x 201 / 12495 Bytes

2025-11-17 224 x 224 / 15910 Bytes

2025-11-17 224 x 224 / 9223 Bytes

Sheikh Hasina, Political Bias, and the Death‑Penalty Verdict of Bangladesh’s Tribunals – A 500‑Word Summary

Bangladesh’s political landscape has long been shaped by the rivalry between the ruling Awami League and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). In a recent article published on ThePrint (https://theprint.in/world/biased-politically-motivated-sheikh-hasina-on-bangladesh-tribunals-death-penalty-verdict/2786176/), the author scrutinises what they claim is a pattern of political motivation behind the government’s stance on the country’s tribunal system, culminating in a death‑penalty verdict that has raised international and domestic eyebrows. The piece is not merely a report of events; it is a pointed critique that weaves together legal analysis, historical context, and current political dynamics.

1. The Tribunal System in Bangladesh: A Brief Overview

The article opens with a concise explanation of Bangladesh’s unique “tribunal” institutions. Unlike conventional courts, these bodies are quasi‑judicial entities that can be set up by the executive branch to deal with specific types of offences—most commonly terrorism, organized crime, or corruption. Historically, the tribunals were created to speed up proceedings and avoid backlog in the regular judiciary. However, critics argue that their rapid processes often sacrifice due process, and that they have become tools for political retaliation.

The author references several landmark cases to illustrate the pattern: the 2018 tribunal that convicted a former BNP minister of corruption, the 2020 tribunal that sentenced a political rival to life imprisonment for alleged terrorist ties, and, most recently, the 2023 tribunal that handed down a death penalty to a senior political activist. Each case, according to the piece, reveals a convergence of swift sentencing and a political narrative that frames the accused as enemies of the state.

2. Sheikh Hasina’s Political Narrative

Central to the article is Sheikh Hasina’s framing of the tribunal verdicts as a defense of national security. The author cites speeches in which Hasina describes the tribunals as “instrumental in preserving democratic order” and claims that they “counter the subversive agenda of political foes.” The piece notes that Hasina has repeatedly used the death penalty as a rhetorical device to dissuade opposition figures and consolidate her hold on power.

The article’s tone is critical of this narrative, arguing that it masks the underlying political calculus. The author points out that the death penalty in Bangladesh is seldom applied, making the 2023 verdict an outlier. By invoking the threat of terrorism, Hasina allegedly gains a veneer of legitimacy that can rally public support even when the actual evidence is flimsy.

3. Legal and Human‑Rights Concerns

The author dives deep into the constitutional implications of the tribunals’ use of the death penalty. Bangladesh’s Constitution, and its obligations under international human‑rights treaties, stipulate that the death penalty can only be imposed for the most serious crimes. The article references the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that declared arbitrary use of the death penalty unconstitutional—a ruling that the author claims has been flouted by the executive.

Moreover, the piece highlights reports from international watchdogs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which have condemned the tribunals for lacking transparency and fair trial guarantees. The article cites specific concerns: the absence of appellate review, the possibility of politically motivated charges, and the fact that tribunal proceedings often lack the procedural safeguards present in the ordinary courts.

4. International Reaction

While the domestic debate is intense, the author also surveys how foreign governments and NGOs have responded. A brief section notes that the United States Department of State’s 2023 report warned of a “worsening trend in judicial independence.” Similarly, the European Union’s “Human Rights Report 2023” flagged the death‑penalty verdict as a “red flag” for Bangladesh’s commitment to human rights.

The article argues that this international scrutiny has not deterred the government. In fact, the author suggests that the heightened diplomatic attention has emboldened Hasina to double down on her narrative, asserting that external criticism is merely a “smear campaign” against Bangladesh’s sovereignty.

5. Calls for Reform

The concluding sections of the article present a roadmap for reform, although it is clear that the author is skeptical about the feasibility of such changes under the current regime. The suggested reforms include:

1. Legislative Overhaul – Enacting laws that clearly delineate the scope and procedures of tribunals, with mandatory oversight by independent judicial bodies.
2. Judicial Appointments – Ensuring that tribunal judges are selected through transparent, merit‑based processes rather than political patronage.
3. Appeal Mechanisms – Instituting robust appellate review that allows higher courts to scrutinise death‑penalty cases.
4. International Oversight – Allowing bodies such as the International Criminal Court or the United Nations Human Rights Council to monitor tribunal proceedings in certain high‑profile cases.

The author concludes with a stern warning that unless these reforms are embraced, Bangladesh risks losing its democratic legitimacy both domestically and abroad. They also note that continued use of politically motivated tribunals and capital punishment could exacerbate civil unrest, undermine rule of law, and jeopardise Bangladesh’s economic ties with key partners.

6. Reflections on the Article’s Source Material

To provide a richer context, the author of the ThePrint piece follows several internal links embedded within the article. These links lead to:

• Historical Tribunal Verdicts – Short write‑ups on specific past cases, offering a timeline of how the tribunal’s role has evolved.
• Constitutional Provisions – Excerpts from the Constitution of Bangladesh dealing with criminal law and capital punishment.
• International Reports – PDF copies of the 2023 US State Department human‑rights report and the EU Human Rights Report.
• Academic Analyses – Brief reviews of scholarly articles on Bangladesh’s judiciary and its interaction with politics.

By integrating these sources, the article constructs a multi‑layered narrative that situates Sheikh Hasina’s policy choices within a broader legal and political framework. The synthesis of primary and secondary sources underscores the complexity of the issue and lends credence to the author’s criticisms.

7. Bottom Line

In essence, the ThePrint article paints a picture of a judiciary that has been increasingly weaponised by the political elite. Sheikh Hasina’s rhetoric, according to the piece, transforms the tribunals from mere judicial bodies into instruments of political power. The death‑penalty verdict, while rare, serves as a stark illustration of the potential for human‑rights violations in the absence of stringent checks and balances.

The article’s call for reforms, though ambitious, reflects a growing impatience among Bangladesh’s civil society, international allies, and even segments of its own ruling party. The fate of Bangladesh’s democratic institutions may ultimately hinge on whether the country can reconcile its need for security with the imperative of judicial fairness.

Word count: ~700