Exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen has sharply criticised the International Crimes Tribunal’s decision to hand former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina a death sentence, questioning why the leaders of the current interim administration—particularly Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus—have not been subjected to similar legal scrutiny. Nasreen argued that the very actions for which Hasina is now being condemned mirror those carried out by Yunus’s own administration during the turbulent months following the student-led uprising that forced Hasina from power in 2024.
The ICT ruling, which convicted the 78-year-old Awami League leader in absentia, held her responsible for incitement, unlawful orders to use lethal force, and failure to prevent killings during last year’s nationwide protests. The verdict marked a dramatic escalation in Bangladesh’s political crisis, particularly because Hasina has been living in exile in India since her ouster, and because the tribunal delivered this judgment just weeks before the country is due to hold national elections.
In a strongly worded post on X, Nasreen accused Yunus and his allies of weaponising the judicial system to portray Hasina as a criminal while excusing similar or worse actions committed under the interim regime. She said that Yunus and what she described as his “jihadist forces” had authorised their own violent crackdowns when protests spiralled out of control, yet none of those decisions were being treated as criminal acts. Nasreen suggested that the tribunal’s verdict was politically engineered and symptomatic of a broader double standard in how state violence is judged depending on who occupies power.
Nasreen’s intervention reflects her long-standing opposition to Islamist influence in Bangladeshi politics and her recent criticism of the Yunus-led administration. She has repeatedly accused the interim government of committing abuses against civilians, demanded that Yunus be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize, and claimed that Bangladesh has descended into rule by an unelected clique that suppresses dissent under the guise of restoring order. Her remarks also carry symbolic weight given her own history: forced into exile in 1994 due to Islamist threats over her book Lajja, she has since become one of South Asia’s most prominent voices against religious extremism and political hypocrisy.
The tribunal’s verdict is already reverberating through Bangladesh’s political landscape. Former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan received a simultaneous death sentence, and former police chief Abdullah Al-Mamun, who turned approver, was given a five-year term. With the Awami League barred from contesting the upcoming elections and Hasina labelling the judgement a “rigged, politically motivated” outcome issued by a government with no popular mandate, analysts warn that the ruling may inflame tensions rather than restore stability. Yunus, however, praised the decision as proof that accountability applies to all Bangladeshis regardless of status.
As Bangladesh heads towards an election cycle already marred by deep polarisation, Nasreen’s critique underscores the broader question now haunting the country: whether justice is truly being pursued, or whether it is being selectively deployed as a political instrument in the aftermath of Hasina’s fall.
