By The South Asia Editorial Desk
In a remarkable move, Bangladesh’s interim authorities have launched a formal legal process against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, marking what may become a historic test of political accountability in the country. On June 1, 2025, a special tribunal – originally designed to prosecute war crimes – opened proceedings against Hasina for alleged crimes against humanity stemming from the violent suppression of nationwide protests in 2024.
The tribunal alleges that during her final months in office, Hasina authorized or failed to prevent severe state repression that resulted in the deaths of hundreds – and by some counts, over a thousand – civilians. Reports from international human rights groups and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have documented mass casualties, arbitrary detentions, and disproportionate use of force, including against women and minors, during the months-long uprising that ultimately led to the collapse of her administration.
Hasina has been in exile in India since August 2024. Two of her senior associates – former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan and ex-police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun – have also been named in the indictment. Mamun is reportedly in custody; Khan, like Hasina, is believed to have fled to India. The tribunal has summoned all three to appear before the court on June 16 for the first round of public hearings.
The trial is being conducted under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, legislation that dates back to 1973 but was reactivated and reformed by Hasina’s own government in 2009 to prosecute individuals accused of atrocities committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War. The irony of that legacy is now front and center: the very legal framework once used to prosecute political opponents is now being applied to the former head of government herself.
Following the political turmoil of late 2024, an interim caretaker government led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus was installed with a mandate to restore democratic order. Among the new administration’s first actions were the suspension of the Awami League’s political registration, the dissolution of key executive bodies tied to the previous government, and the rollout of reforms aimed at restoring institutional credibility. The prosecution of Sheikh Hasina is arguably the most consequential act in this unfolding transition.
Tribunal officials have reiterated that the proceedings will follow established legal standards and maintain procedural fairness. Although no sweeping public declarations have been made by the court, multiple sources within the justice ministry have emphasized the importance of transparency, judicial independence, and adherence to international norms. Several international legal observers and rights organizations, while cautious, have acknowledged the trial’s potential significance if conducted credibly.
Still, the prosecution has not been without controversy. Critics – both within Bangladesh and abroad – have raised concerns about the optics and implications of putting a former Prime Minister on trial so soon after a political upheaval. Some argue that the trial risks becoming a vehicle for political retribution, especially given the swift banning of the Awami League and the broader sidelining of opposition forces. Others question whether exiled defendants will receive adequate legal representation and whether political freedoms within the country are robust enough to permit open debate about the trial’s legitimacy.
Yet despite the tension, what lies ahead is not only a legal reckoning but a deeper reckoning with Bangladesh’s evolving political identity. The charges against Sheikh Hasina may ultimately serve as a litmus test for the strength and sincerity of the interim government’s commitment to justice – whether that justice is blind to political legacy or bound by it.
The coming months will shape how history remembers this moment: as either a landmark in Bangladesh’s journey toward democratic resilience or a flashpoint for deepening division and institutional fragility. Either way, the tribunal’s work will be closely watched – not just for the verdict it reaches, but for the standard it sets.