Date: 18/11/2025
Statement No: CW/11/25/S/T/9
Constitutional Prerogative and the Judgment in the Matter of Sheikh Hasina: Legal Vindicative Response to OHCHR Criticism of Trial in Absentia
The Constitution Watchdog acknowledges the recent press statement issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on November 17, 2025, concerning the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) verdict against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. We agree with the OHCHR’s fundamental assertion that this judgment marks an important moment for victims of the grave violations committed during the suppression of protests, including those perpetrated in the July Movement of 2024. However, we must strongly assert the legal and constitutional integrity of the ICT proceedings and firmly defend the sovereign right of the people of Bangladesh to administer justice for crimes of the gravest magnitude.
The authority of the International Crimes Tribunal is not derived from mutable international consensus, but from the immutable foundational principles of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. As enshrined in Article 7(1) of the Constitution, all powers of the Republic originate with the people, and the exercise of such power on their behalf must be effected only under and by the authority of the Constitution. The establishment of the ICT under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, is a direct and solemn exercise of this sovereign authority—a legislative mandate born from a categorical national commitment to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes, which are jus cogens violations. Our domestic legal framework is specifically designed to address these exceptional crimes where national accountability is an obligation, not a choice.
The OHCHR’s concern regarding due process and fair trial, specifically relating to the procedure of trial in absentia, fails to fully appreciate the unique nature of this legislative instrument (lex specialis). The procedure followed is not a procedural flaw, but a deliberate, legally sanctioned safeguard explicitly provided for under Section 10(A) of the The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, which says that the tribunal may proceed with the trial in the absence of any accused person if he fails to appear or is not found, and may deliver judgment and pass sentence accordingly. This provision is an indispensable tool, enacted to ensure that individuals accused of crimes against humanity—who deliberately evade justice by becoming fugitives—cannot indefinitely frustrate the judicial process and perpetually deny victims their right to an effective remedy. The paramountcy of justice for victims and the public interest in accountability outweighs the procedural privilege of presence for an accused who has consciously chosen to flee the jurisdiction.
We must articulate, with absolute clarity, that Crimes Against Humanity represent the supreme transgression against the collective conscience of humanity. Those individuals responsible for the indiscriminate killing, torture, and widespread atrocities witnessed during the July Movement 2024 have committed acts so heinous that they stand outside the ordinary parameters of criminal law. The sovereign state is obligated to ensure that justice is served. To argue that perpetrators of such crimes, having killed people indiscriminately, retain an absolute right to procedural protections while simultaneously mocking the judicial system by remaining fugitives, is to prioritize the procedural choice of the accused over the substantive and restorative rights of the victims and the nation’s demand for accountability. The principle is simple: when an accused voluntarily and actively frustrates the judicial process in a case of supreme crime, the State’s duty to its citizens requires the Tribunal to proceed.
The verdicts rendered by the ICT Tribunal affirm the independence and resolve of Bangladesh’s legal institutions. We call upon the international community to respect the sovereign prerogative of the people of Bangladesh to administer justice for the gravest offenses through their own legally constituted domestic mechanism. The integrity of the ICT, established through an act of Parliament and upheld by the judiciary, stands as a necessary cornerstone of national reconciliation and the rule of law.
Statement Issued By
Md. Ibrahim Khalilullah
President
Constitution Watchdog (CW)
