The conviction of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, members of her family, and UK MP Tulip Siddiq in the RAJUK Purbachal plot case is being hailed by the interim government as a triumph of accountability. It is nothing of the sort. It is the decisive signal that the rule of law has been cannibalised by political expediency, and that the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)—a court born of the blood of 1971—has been hollowed out and repurposed into a domestic punishment machine.

Let’s be clear about what the law actually says. The ICT was established under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 with a singular, sacred mandate: to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed during the Liberation War. It was built to judge the enemies of humanity, not to adjudicate administrative disputes over land plots. By dragging a civil land allocation issue into the arena of a war crimes tribunal, the state has not strengthened justice; it has stripped the process of legality.

Jurisdiction is not a suggestion. It is the bedrock of authority. When a court acts outside its mandate, its verdict is not a “tough judgment." It is a legal nullity.

The procedural violence is just as stark. These trials are being conducted in absentia, without cross-examination, and without meaningful defence. Where is the money trail? Criminal corruption demands proof of personal enrichment. Yet, no public evidence shows that Sheikh Hasina or Tulip Siddiq monetised these plots. If accumulation of private wealth was the motive, why did Sheikh Hasina preserve Dhanmondi 32—arguably the most valuable property in Dhaka—as a public museum rather than keeping it........

© News18