The conviction of Sheikh Hasina by the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh is being presented to us as a necessary act of justice, a moment of moral closure for the tragedy of July 2024. But when I look at the judgment and the procedural history through the lens of constitutional theory and settled criminal jurisprudence, it becomes impossible to accept this process as a lawful trial. It feels less like a judicial exercise grounded in evidence and rights, and more like an administrative performance carried out under political pressure. It is a classic example of using the law not to discover the truth, but to validate a decision that had already been made.

Bangladesh certainly needed a truth-seeking process, one anchored in due process and fairness. Instead, the Muhammad Yunus-led administration chose to repurpose a tribunal that was already burdened by a difficult legacy. They expanded its jurisdiction to try a former Prime Minister in absentia, a move that shows just how easily a transitional government without an electoral mandate can slip into dangerous habits. This is what scholars often warn against when they talk about abusive constitutionalism, where the mechanisms of law are used to subvert the very principles of justice they claim to uphold. The International Crimes Tribunal was originally built to prosecute collaborators of the 1971 genocide. Even........

© News18