The firm argues that the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) lacks the jurisdiction to try events from the 2024 protests. They contend that the August 2024 amendments—which extended the tribunal’s power beyond its original 1971 war crimes mandate—constitute a “legal impossibility”.
Labonno Chowdhury : The London-based law firm Kingsley Napley, representing ousted former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has formally challenged her death sentence, demanding that the verdict be “immediately set aside as legally void
Key Grounds for Challenge
The legal objection, filed in early April 2026, focuses on several critical jurisdictional and procedural issues:Unlawful Expansion of Mandate: The firm argues that the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) lacks the jurisdiction to try events from the 2024 protests. They contend that the August 2024 amendments—which extended the tribunal’s power beyond its original 1971 war crimes mandate—constitute a “legal impossibility”.
Summary Execution: Lawyers warn that carrying out a death penalty following “flawed proceedings” held in absentia would amount to summary execution under international law.
Regular Criminal Justice System: The firm maintains that these cases should be handled through Bangladesh’s standard criminal justice system rather than a specialized tribunal they characterize as a “domestic, politicised court”.
Predetermined Outcome: Hasina has personally dismissed the judgment as “politically motivated” and “biased,” claiming it was delivered by a “rigged tribunal” with no democratic mandate.
Context of the Verdict
Date of Sentencing: On November 17, 2025, the ICT sentenced Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death in absentia.
Charges: The conviction stems from the brutal crackdown on student-led protests in July–August 2024, which resulted in an estimated 1,400 deaths.
Current Status: Sheikh Hasina remains in exile in India. While the Bangladeshi government has sought her extradition, India has not yet formally responded, citing clauses in their bilateral treaty regarding offenses of a “political character”.
International bodies, including the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, have expressed concerns regarding the trial’s fairness, specifically noting the lack of defense rights and the use of capital punishment.
“fundamentally incompatible with basic international standards for fairness and due process”.
The three-member ICT bench, led by Justice Golam Mortuza Mozumder, found her guilty of crimes against humanity linked to the violent state crackdown on student-led protests in July and August 2024.The conviction covered multiple charges, including incitement, ordering killings and failing to prevent atrocities.In a 10-page letter sent on Monday, Kingsley Napley described the trial as “fundamentally incompatible with basic international standards for fairness and due process”.
Acting on Hasina’s behalf, the firm argued the case unfolded in a “hostile environment”, pointing to the banning of the Awami League’s political activities under anti-terror legislation in May 2025 and alleged intimidation of its legal team.The letter reads, “Sheikh Hasina has been prosecuted and sentenced in absentia for capital offences in proceedings that… violate her fundamental rights under international law.
“This correspondence does not constitute acceptance of, submission to, or recognition of the legitimacy of these proceedings as currently constituted.”
A central claim in the filing is the alleged lack of judicial independence.The firm says the ICT bench was reconstituted in October 2024 with judges said to have “overt political affiliations to opposition parties”.
It highlights Justice Shafiul Alam Mahmud’s appointment to the High Court just six days before joining the tribunal, alleging he had “pre-determined Sheikh Hasina’s guilt”.Citing a reported August 2025 courtroom exchange, the lawyers say Justice Shafiul told state-appointed defence counsel, “You’ll try your best to save your clients from the gallows”, arguing this suggests the verdict was a “foregone conclusion”.
The firm also questions the neutrality of former chief prosecutor Md Tajul Islam, noting his past role as defence counsel for senior Jamaat-e-Islami figures and his participation in rallies calling for an Awami League ban during the trial.
Beyond alleged bias, the objection challenges the ICT’s jurisdiction.It argues amendments made in August 2024 to extend the tribunal’s mandate beyond 1971 war crimes to include the July-August 2024 protests amount to an “unlawful expansion” and a “legal impossibility”.
Kingsley Napley says such cases should be handled under the regular criminal justice system, warning that imposing the death penalty after flawed proceedings amounts to “summary execution” under international law.
The firm has demanded the verdict be “immediately set aside as legally void” and sought a response within 14 days, cautioning that Hasina may pursue remedies through international human rights bodies.Authorities have defended the trial as essential for justice over the July killings.
The ICT, established in 2010 by Hasina regime to prosecute 1971 war crimes and later renewed for 2024 violence, faces intense scrutiny from rights groups for being a domestic, politicised court rather than a truly international body.They maintain that it operates under national law and lacks international oversight, leading to concerns over fair trial standards, witness manipulation, and politicised prosecutions.
