Hasina's conviction
The sentencing of Bangladesh's deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina to six months in prison for contempt of court marks the first step towards punishing her for her authoritarian rule and violent suppression of dissent that eventually led to her downfall. Hasina has been living in India as a state guest since fleeing Dhaka last August. It is worth noting that India has an extradition treaty with Bangladesh, and the conviction should mean Dhaka can now secure Hasina's repatriation, although India's current government has a long record of failing to honour its international commitments.
Hasina's conviction for contempt and interference in judicial proceedings is based on a leaked audio recording in which she appears to be vowing to kill everyone who had filed cases against her. But the six-month conviction pales before the other 200-plus cases facing the former premier. The highest counts are equivalent to crimes against humanity and carry life sentences. Over 1,400 people were killed after Hasina ordered law enforcement to brutally put down the protests that eventually led to her ouster.
Hasina, her family, and close allies also face corruption charges amounting to billions of dollars, with several credible accusations, such as a bridge project that was so tainted that the World Bank withdrew its funding. The corruption charges even affected the British government, with Hasina's niece, a UK minister, having to resign after allegations that she received improper gifts and other benefits from Hasina and her Awami League, though British authorities have cleared her.
Revelations since Hasina's departure show that she held the courts in the same contempt that she held democracy, but there has still been valid international criticism of the closed nature of the trials and investigations. Potentially putting a former PM behind bars should not be taken lightly, and the Bangladeshi government should ensure that the investigations and trials of Hasina are beyond reproach to ensure that neither she nor her allies can ever claim political victimisation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
19 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
US imposes sanctions targeting Iran oil trade
The US imposed sanctions on Thursday against a network that smuggles Iranian oil disguised as Iraqi oil, and on a Hezbollah-controlled financial institution, the Treasury Department said. A network of companies run by Iraqi-British national Salim Ahmed Said has been buying and shipping billions of dollars worth of Iranian oil disguised as, or blended with, Iraqi oil since at least 2020, the department said. "Treasury will continue to target Tehran's revenue sources and intensify economic pressure to disrupt the regime's access to the financial resources that fuel its destabilizing activities," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. The US has imposed waves of sanctions on Iran's oil exports over its nuclear program and funding of militant groups across the Middle East.
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Govt mulling resolving IWT row via Indus body
ISLAMABAD: The government is planning to resolve the matter of abeyance of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) by India through Permanent Indus Commissioners of the two signatories, Pakistan and India, but If there is no substantial outcome, then Pakistan would consider approaching the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This was stated by Attorney-General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan while speaking to Business Recorder. The process involves Pakistan approaching the World Bank, the broker of IWT, for constitution of Court of Arbitration (CoA), after Indian government's unilateral decision of putting the IWT in abeyance subsequent to the 23 April 2025 terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Illegal Occupied Held Kashmir citing national security concerns. IWT: PM hails arbitration court's ruling 'We are preparing our case to seek all legal remedies to stop New Delhi from blatant violation of the Treaty unilaterally which is still inforce as per the international law,' informed sources told Business Recorder. According to Article 9 of IWT, if a question arises on the applicability of the Treaty between the two signatory countries, and in case both do not agree on a resolution mechanism bilaterally or G2G then the affected party will approach the third party. In this instance, the third party is CoA as a neutral expert is limited to deal only with the design of a project. The remedy to approach CoA is the role of the World Bank, as no country as an aggrieved party can establish CoA itself and for this purpose agreement of both parties is not necessary. The sources said, when an aggrieved party approaches the World Bank for establishment of CoA, the Bank has to establish CoA and it is the duty of CoA to take a decision on the application of the aggrieved country as it cannot hold the application on the grounds of reaching a consensus between the parties. However, in case the World Bank does not forward Pakistan's application for establishment of CoA under influence of some 'powers' and puts it aside, even then it willbe to the benefit of Pakistan as it would have adopted a legal course in accordance with the law and in case of any other step the burden will be on India for not following the legal course. 'Pakistan has decided to adopt legal course. We will go to the Court of Arbitration which will give its verdict as per its mandate,' the sources said, adding that in case the World Bank does not establish CoA, it will be enough for the world powers to understand that whatever legal course was available Pakistan adopted it before taking any adverse action. If CoA gives its verdict in favour of Pakistan and India does not implement it, then Pakistan has legal justification for considering it an act of war. When the case is taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), both countries have to accept its jurisdiction. However, if the United Nations passes a resolution on the matter, then IJC is bound to hear an application/ petition of a party as an organ of UN like the World Bank. CoA is established under Indus Waters Treaty whereas IJC can hear any case. Currently, Pakistan is sharing water related data with India unilaterally which means if a question arises at any international fora if Pakistan has shared all the information with New Delhi, then Pakistan would be in the better position. Pakistan has also shared information about variation in inflows in Chenab river at Maralla through Ministry of Foreign Affairs but received no response. CoA recently delivered a supplemental award related to the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) which was rejected by India, while Pakistan accepted it. The decision relates to a dispute concerning the construction of hydroelectric power plants on the Western rivers, specifically the Kishanganga (2013) and Ratle (2015) projects. The CoA's supplemental award appears to address outstanding issues or clarifications following its earlier rulings. In 25 January 2023, India issued a notice to Pakistan conveying its intent to amend the IWT within 90 days to guarantee that disputes would be handled between the two nations without any outside interference. The notice of negotiation was issued just two days before the COA, established at Pakistan's request under the IWT, was to commence which was boycotted by India. According to the Attorney General of Pakistan's (AGP) office, on April 5, 2023, Pakistan responded to the Indian notice in which it was stated that Pakistan was ready to listen to New Delhi's concerns about the prevalent treaty at the level of the Permanent Commission of Indus Waters (PCIW). The decision about the parleys on changes to the Treaty will be taken once Pakistan hears India's concerns at the PCIW level. However, under Article XII, the existing Treaty will continue to reign unless the parties to the dispute, Pakistan and India, bilaterally introduce changes to the Pact. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US imposes new curbs targeting Iran oil trade, Hezbollah
WASHINGTON: The US imposed sanctions on Thursday against a network that smuggles Iranian oil disguised as Iraqi oil, and on a Hezbollah-controlled financial institution, the Treasury Department said. A network of companies run by Iraqi-British national Salim Ahmed Said has been buying and shipping billions of dollars worth of Iranian oil disguised as, or blended with, Iraqi oil since at least 2020, the department said. 'Treasury will continue to target Tehran's revenue sources and intensify economic pressure to disrupt the regime's access to the financial resources that fuel its destabilizing activities,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. The US has imposed waves of sanctions on Iran's oil exports over its nuclear program and funding of groups across the Middle East. Reuters reported late last year that a fuel oil smuggling network that generates at least $1 billion a year for Iran and its proxies has flourished in Iraq since 2022. Thursday's sanctions came after the US carried out strikes on June 22 on three Iranian nuclear sites, including its most deeply buried enrichment plant Fordow. The Pentagon said on Wednesday the strikes had degraded Iran's nuclear program by up to two years, despite a far more cautious initial assessment that had leaked to the public. The US and Iran are expected to hold talks about its nuclear program next week in Oslo, Axios reported. Said's companies and vessels blend Iranian oil with Iraqi oil, which is then sold to Western buyers via Iraq or the United Arab Emirates as purely Iraqi oil using forged documentation to avoid sanctions, Treasury said. Said controls UAE-based company VS Tankers though he avoids formal association with it, Treasury said. Formerly known as Al-Iraqia Shipping Services & Oil Trading (AISSOT), VS Tankers has smuggled oil for the benefit of the Iranian government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is designated by Washington as a terrorist organization, it said. The sanctions block US assets of those designated and prevent Americans from doing business with them. VS Tankers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Iran's mission in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The US also sanctioned several vessels that are accused of engaging in the covert delivery of Iranian oil, intensifying pressure on Iran's 'shadow fleet,' it said. The Treasury Department also issued sanctions against several senior officials and one entity associated with the Hezbollah-controlled financial institution Al-Qard Al-Hassan. The officials, the department said, conducted millions of dollars in transactions that ultimately benefited, but obscured, Hezbollah.
