The credibility of Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)—once established as a symbol of justice for the atrocities of 1971—is now facing one of the most serious crises in its history. Recent developments, including conflicting official statements, allegations of evidence tampering, and claims of financial impropriety, have raised profound concerns about whether the tribunal is upholding the rule of law or drifting into political instrumentalization. The sentencing of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has only intensified scrutiny, drawing criticism from legal experts, international observers, and human rights advocates.

The death penalty and life imprisonment sentences handed down to Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina have sparked widespread criticism both domestically and internationally. On March 17, 2026, British journalist David Bergman warned in a Facebook post:

“Those who pressure investigators and prosecutors at the International Crimes Tribunal to charge Awami League politicians—or others associated with them—with crimes against humanity related to the July 2024 killings, despite the absence of sufficient evidence, risk fatally undermining the credibility of the entire process.”

However, developments on March 31, 2026, further deepened concerns. In a Facebook post titled “What is going on with the International Crimes Tribunal?”, Bergman highlighted troubling inconsistencies within the tribunal.

According to reports, ICT Prosecutor Tanvir Hassan Zoha informed journalists that hard drives containing CCTV system logs—meant to remain within the tribunal—had allegedly been replaced. This raised serious doubts about whether it would be possible to verify claims that a relative of an accused individual, later turned state witness in the Ashulia body-burning case, had entered the office of ICT prosecutor Gazi MH Tamim carrying a bag of money, as alleged by another prosecutor, Sultan Mahmud.

Subsequently, a statement—apparently issued in the name of the Chief Prosecutor but sent by Tamim—claimed that a fact-finding committee had not yet begun investigating the matter and that Zoha’s remarks were merely personal opinions. The statement further described such comments as “undesirable” during an ongoing inquiry. Notably, the post was later edited to remove reference to the Chief Prosecutor.

Tamim later issued another message to journalists asserting that the authority responsible for preserving CCTV footage had confirmed that no footage was missing.

Such conflicting accounts have significantly undermined confidence not only in the specific inquiry but also in the broader credibility of the ICT process.

Given these developments, there appear to be serious discrepancies, allegations of financial misconduct, and concerns over procedural integrity surrounding the trials of a former prime minister, her cabinet colleagues, and members of the Awami League.

Meanwhile, on March 30, 2026, the UK-based law firm Kingsley Napley, acting as legal counsel for Sheikh Hasina, served a 37-point legal notice on the ICT. The notice strongly objected to the proceedings, stating:

“We write to formally object to the unlawful conduct of proceedings that have resulted in the prosecution and sentencing of Sheikh Hasina… fundamentally incompatible with basic international standards for fairness and due process…”

The firm explicitly rejected the legitimacy of the proceedings and reserved the right to challenge them in international forums.

Although the Chief Prosecutor Md. Aminul Islam, the Prosecution Office, and the Tribunal’s Registrar confirmed receipt of the notice, concerns remain unaddressed.

The legal notice also questioned the neutrality of former Chief Prosecutor Md. Tajul Islam, citing his prior role as defense counsel for senior Jamaat-e-Islami figures and his participation in rallies advocating a ban on the Awami League.

Kingsley Napley issued several key demands, including:

·       Immediate nullification of the verdict and sentence against Sheikh Hasina

·       A halt to any execution of the death penalty 

·       Full compliance with international fair trial standards 

·       Protection for lawyers and affiliates facing intimidation 

·       Formal acknowledgment of violations under international human rights law 

The firm further emphasized that Sheikh Hasina reserves the right to pursue legal remedies through international human rights bodies.

Commenting on the allegations, a former official of the US Department of the Treasury, speaking anonymously, stated that the matter should be brought before the US Department of State for investigation.

The official added that the allegations surrounding the ICT may fall under provisions of the Global Magnitsky Act. If evidence emerges of financial misconduct, including the movement of illicit funds to the United States, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) could initiate a review. Such actions—if substantiated—may qualify as sanctionable offenses under Executive Order 13818, including corruption, abuse of authority, and human rights violations.

Similar measures, including sanctions or visa restrictions, could also be considered by the United Nations and other governments.

It is important to recall that the International Crimes Tribunal, established under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 and reconstituted in 2009, was originally mandated to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Liberation War. While it initially received both domestic and international support, recent developments have raised serious concerns regarding its independence and integrity.

Multiple investigative reports—supported by documentary evidence and audio recordings—have alleged corruption within the prosecution. These include claims that prosecutors demanded large sums of money, reportedly around one crore Bangladeshi taka, in exchange for bail or favorable outcomes. Independent verification of such materials by separate media outlets adds weight to these allegations.

Additionally, there are growing concerns that the ICT is being used as an instrument of political coercion. Following recent political changes, its focus appears to have shifted from addressing 1971 war crimes to targeting political opponents, former officials, and members of state institutions. Trials conducted in absentia, the mass filing of cases, and the sidelining of legacy war crimes proceedings raise serious due process concerns.

If these allegations continue to mount without credible, transparent, and independent investigation, the consequences may extend far beyond Bangladesh’s borders. What was once established as a court for justice risks being remembered as a cautionary example of institutional erosion. The weakening of due process, coupled with allegations of corruption and political targeting, threatens not only the legitimacy of the International Crimes Tribunal but also Bangladesh’s standing in the global legal and human rights community. Restoring credibility will require more than denial—it will demand accountability, transparency, and a clear commitment to the rule of law.

© Eurasia Review