A stunned silence shattered into jubilant cheers within the Dhaka courtroom as the judge delivered a momentous verdict: former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity. The ruling, broadcast live across the nation, resonated with a public yearning for accountability.
Hasina, 78, had boldly defied court summons, remaining in India throughout the proceedings. The charges stemmed from a brutal crackdown on a student-led uprising that ultimately led to her removal from power in August 2024, a period now under intense scrutiny.
Judge Golam Mortuza Mozumder meticulously outlined the case, stating that all elements defining crimes against humanity had been demonstrably fulfilled. Hasina was found guilty on three critical counts: incitement, ordering killings, and a devastating failure to prevent widespread atrocities.
The court’s decision was stark and unequivocal: a single sentence of death. Simultaneously, former interior minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, also a fugitive from justice, received the same sentence after being convicted on four counts of crimes against humanity.
A contrasting fate awaited former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, who appeared in court and admitted his guilt. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, a significantly lighter penalty compared to his former colleagues.
Bangladesh has been gripped by political instability since the end of Hasina’s long and often autocratic rule. The upcoming elections, slated for February 2026, have been marred by escalating violence and deep-seated divisions.
The United Nations estimates that as many as 1,400 people perished during the crackdowns as Hasina desperately attempted to retain control. These deaths formed the harrowing core of the evidence presented during the trial.
Chief prosecutor Tajul Islam, speaking before the verdict, expressed hope that the ruling would finally satisfy the public’s “thirst for justice” and bring a definitive end to the alleged crimes against humanity. The prosecution had meticulously built a case based on five distinct charges.
Months of testimony were heard, often in Hasina’s absence, detailing accounts of alleged orders for mass killings. Despite the gravity of the accusations, Hasina dismissed the trial as a “jurisprudential joke,” refusing to acknowledge the court’s legitimacy or the charges against her.
Although assigned a state-appointed lawyer, Hasina consistently rejected the court’s authority and vehemently denied all allegations. In a written interview just weeks prior, she predicted a guilty verdict, stating it was “preordained” and came as no surprise.
Ahead of the verdict, Dhaka was effectively under siege. Security forces surrounded the courthouse, deploying armored vehicles and establishing checkpoints throughout the city. Nearly half of the capital’s 34,000 police officers were placed on high alert.
The atmosphere was tense, punctuated by sporadic acts of violence. Crude bombs had been detonated across Dhaka in the preceding weeks, targeting buildings associated with the interim government, public transportation, and even religious sites.
The political climate further deteriorated when Bangladesh’s foreign ministry summoned India’s envoy, demanding that New Delhi prevent Hasina from speaking to the press and “spewing hatred.” Despite the pressure, Hasina remained defiant.
In her October interview, Hasina expressed sorrow for the lives lost during the student uprisings, a statement that ignited fury among those who believed she had ruthlessly prioritized power above all else. Her words were seen as a callous attempt to downplay the severity of the events.
Hasina also warned that the ban on her former ruling party, the Awami League, was exacerbating the already profound political crisis facing the nation of 170 million people as it approached the pivotal elections.
