Controversial Trial Raises Questions Over Fairness in Hasina's Death Sentence

The trial leading to the death sentence of Bangladesh's former Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, by a special tribunal faces scrutiny over alleged lapses, including unconstitutional appointment of judges. Concerns about fairness and predetermined outcomes have been raised by those familiar with the case, questioning the tribunal's authority and legal integrity.

The trial that sentenced Bangladesh's ousted prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, to death has come under intense scrutiny, with insiders alleging significant procedural lapses. Concerns center on the unconstitutional appointment of judges and a potential predisposition of the verdict, casting doubts over the tribunal's legitimacy.

Hasina, sentenced in absentia for crimes against humanity, was tried by an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) that some argue was established and structured in violation of constitutional norms. Critics highlight amendments to the ICT Act of 1973 made without parliamentary approval, raising queries about the tribunal's legal standing.

Key legal figures involved in the trial have also been questioned for their impartiality and experience. The trial's conduction, coupled with the swift announcement of a death sentence, has led to widespread debate about its fairness and the potential political motivations underpinning the process.

(With inputs from agencies.)