Sheikh Hasina convicted of crimes against humanity – what we know – Al Jazeera

Report on the Conviction of Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina

A special tribunal in Dhaka has convicted former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of crimes against humanity, sentencing her to death in absentia. The verdict relates to a deadly crackdown on student protests in 2024. This development carries significant implications for Bangladesh’s political stability, rule of law, and its commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 concerning peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Verdict and Legal Proceedings

Charges and Sentences

The International Crimes Tribunal 1 (ICT) delivered multiple sentences against the former prime minister and other officials:

• Sheikh Hasina (Former Prime Minister): Sentenced to death for ordering the use of lethal force, including drones and helicopters, against protesters. A separate sentence of imprisonment until death was issued on three other counts, including incitement and failure to prevent atrocities.
• Asaduzzaman Khan (Former Home Minister): Also sentenced to death in absentia.
• Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun (Former Police Chief): Sentenced to five years in prison, with the court noting his cooperation and provision of material evidence.

The court also directed the government to provide compensation to the victims of the 2024 protests, a measure that aligns with providing access to justice and remedies for victims of human rights violations.

Judicial Process and Scrutiny

The ICT was originally established in 2010 by Sheikh Hasina’s government to investigate war crimes from 1971. However, its proceedings have drawn criticism from human rights organizations regarding adherence to fair trial standards. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has previously highlighted concerns about a lack of judicial independence, witness tampering, and denial of due process rights. These concerns underscore the challenges in establishing fully independent and transparent judicial institutions, a key target of SDG 16.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The trial and its outcome are central to Bangladesh’s progress on SDG 16.

1. Accountability and Rule of Law (Target 16.3): The prosecution of high-level officials for human rights abuses represents a significant step towards ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law. The interim government’s pursuit of these charges signals an intent to end impunity for state-sanctioned violence.
2. Effective and Accountable Institutions (Target 16.6): The proceedings test the capacity of Bangladesh’s judicial institutions to deliver impartial justice. Criticisms of the tribunal’s fairness highlight the ongoing need to strengthen institutional integrity and ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.
3. Promoting Peaceful and Inclusive Societies: The violent crackdown on the 2024 protests was a profound setback for peace and inclusivity. The current legal process is an attempt to address this legacy, but it also risks fueling further political division and violence.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities & SDG 8: Decent Work

The 2024 protests originated from public opposition to a civil service quota system. This links the events directly to broader development goals:

• SDG 10: The protests were a mass mobilization against a policy perceived as perpetuating inequality and limiting opportunities for a large segment of the population.
• SDG 8: The core issue of fair access to government employment for youth is directly related to the goal of achieving full and productive employment and decent work for all.

Political and International Context

Extradition and Diplomatic Relations

Sheikh Hasina and former minister Asaduzzaman Khan are in exile in India. While an extradition treaty exists between Bangladesh and India, it contains a clause allowing refusal for offenses of a “political character.” This complicates efforts by the Bangladeshi interim government to secure their return, placing the legal verdict in a complex diplomatic landscape.

Domestic Political Landscape

The verdict has been labeled “politically motivated” by Sheikh Hasina. Her Awami League party, though now banned, retains a significant activist base, and the verdict could trigger widespread protests and political instability. The interim government, led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, faces the challenge of managing this volatility while preparing for national elections scheduled for 2026.

Future Outlook

The conviction marks a critical juncture for Bangladesh. The short-term outlook is turbulent, with a high risk of political confrontations that could undermine public safety and institutional stability. The long-term implications will depend on whether this moment leads to a sustained shift toward accountability and stronger, more transparent institutions or entrenches a cycle of politicized justice. The upcoming election, which will for the first time include postal voting for the large Bangladeshi diaspora, adds another layer of uncertainty. The nation’s ability to navigate this period will be a defining test of its commitment to democratic governance and the principles enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The primary SDG addressed in the article is:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. The article’s core focus is on the legal and political aftermath of a violent government crackdown. It details the trial of a former prime minister for crimes against humanity, the functioning of judicial institutions (the International Crimes Tribunal), issues of accountability, the rule of law, human rights violations, and the transition to a new government with upcoming elections. These themes are central to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article, the following specific targets under SDG 16 can be identified:

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • The article directly addresses this target by reporting on the “deadly crackdown on student protests in 2024.” It quantifies the violence, stating that “Twelve protesters were killed in these two areas” and that during the uprising, “nearly 1,400 people were killed, according to estimates by the United Nations.” The trial itself is a response to this violence and the resulting deaths.
2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • This target is central to the article. The establishment of the special tribunal, the trial of the former prime minister and other officials, and the subsequent verdicts are all actions aimed at promoting the rule of law and holding individuals accountable for alleged crimes. The article also discusses the complexities of ensuring justice, such as the trial being held in absentia and the challenges of extradition due to a treaty that “may be refused if the offence… is of a political character.” Furthermore, the court’s direction to “pay considerable amount of compensation to the protesters concerned” is a direct measure to provide remedy and access to justice for victims.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article scrutinizes the effectiveness and accountability of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). It notes that Human Rights Watch (HRW) has raised concerns that the tribunal has “previously been fraught with violations of fair trial standards,” including a “lack of independence of judges.” The interim government’s pursuit of the trial can be seen as an attempt to establish accountability within state institutions, while criticisms from the accused (“rigged tribunal”) and HRW highlight the challenges in ensuring these institutions are perceived as fair and transparent.
4. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article touches upon this target by describing the political transition in Bangladesh. The student protests that “forced her out of power” demonstrate a public demand for responsive governance. The establishment of an “interim government” and the plan for “elections for a new parliament… in early 2026” are steps towards a more representative decision-making process. A key development mentioned is that “15 million Bangladeshis living abroad… have now been given the means to vote by post for the first time,” a specific measure to make the electoral process more inclusive and participatory.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

1. For Target 16.1 (Reduce violence and death rates):
   • Number of violent deaths: The article provides specific figures that serve as direct indicators of violence. It states, “Twelve protesters were killed” and “nearly 1,400 people were killed.” These numbers can be used as a baseline to measure reductions in political violence and related death rates in the future.
2. For Target 16.3 (Promote rule of law and access to justice):
   • Number of individuals tried and convicted for crimes against humanity: The conviction and sentencing of the former prime minister, home minister, and police chief serve as an indicator of the justice system’s capacity to prosecute high-level crimes.
   • Provision of remedy for victims: The court’s order to “pay adequate compensation to the wounded protesters” is a measurable indicator of access to justice and remedy for victims of human rights violations.
   • Fair trial standards: While not a quantitative metric, the concerns raised by Human Rights Watch regarding “due process rights” and “independence of judges” imply the need for qualitative indicators to assess the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process.
3. For Target 16.7 (Ensure inclusive and participatory decision-making):
   • Voter enfranchisement: The article provides a clear indicator of increased inclusivity in the democratic process by stating that “15 million Bangladeshis living abroad… have now been given the means to vote.” This expansion of the electorate, accounting for “about 10 percent of the nation’s electorate,” is a direct measure of progress towards more participatory decision-making.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: aljazeera.com