Dhaka, September 15, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)-2 on Tuesday sentenced seven Awami League leaders, including party General Secretary Obaidul Quader, to death for “crimes against humanity” allegedly linked to the country’s July 2024 mass uprising, according to local media reports.
The other leaders sentenced to death are former State Minister for Information and Broadcasting Mohammad Ali Arafat; Awami League Joint General Secretary AFM Bahauddin Nasim; Chhatra League President Saddam Hussain; Chhatra League General Secretary Sheikh Wali Asif Inan; Jubo League President Sheikh Fazle Shams Parash; and Jubo League General Secretary Mainul Hossain Khan Nikhil, Dhaka Tribune reported.
The Chhatra League is the student wing of the Awami League, while the Jubo League is its youth wing.
A three-member tribunal headed by Justice Nazrul Islam Chowdhury announced the verdict on Tuesday. According to the report, all seven leaders are fugitives.
The prosecution alleged that law enforcement agencies and armed cadres of the Awami League and its affiliated organisations carried out systematic attacks, killings and torture against students and civilians during the 2024 uprising.
It further alleged that the accused exercised control and command over the activities and were involved in ordering, inciting, abetting or assisting the alleged crimes, or were aware of them.
The prosecution charged the seven leaders with crimes against humanity under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, including murder, attempted murder, torture, other inhumane acts, abetment, incitement, conspiracy and participation in the commission of crimes.
However, the proceedings have also faced scrutiny from international rights groups.
In July, US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) accused Bangladesh’s authorities of failing to uphold international legal standards at the ICT, warning that shortcomings could deny justice to victims, undermine the rule of law and lead to the unjust imprisonment of political opponents.
The statement followed the ICT prosecution’s filing of formal charges against former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and 40 others in a crimes against humanity case linked to the 2013 crackdown on the Hefazat-e-Islam rally at Dhaka’s Shapla Chattar.
“Those responsible for the many abuses committed under the Sheikh Hasina government should be appropriately held to account, but many prosecutions are falling short of international fair trial standards,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, Deputy Asia Director at HRW.
“Bangladesh needs to urgently reform its criminal justice system, and the new government should ensure that there is no room for political vendettas through shoddy investigations and arbitrary allegations,” she added.
The tribunal was established by the former Hasina-led Awami League government in March 2010 to prosecute individuals accused of international crimes, including crimes against humanity, committed in support of the Pakistan military during Bangladesh’s 1971 War of Independence.
After the Awami League government was toppled by protesters in 2024, an interim government led by Muhammad Yunus amended the law governing the tribunal, including changes to the definition of offences.
HRW said the amendments did not go far enough to ensure due process and procedural safeguards comparable to those followed by international courts dealing with similar crimes.
The current Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) government led by Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, which assumed office in February 2026, has not made changes to those amendments, according to HRW.
The rights organisation also raised concerns over provisions allowing prosecutors to seek arrests without meeting an evidentiary threshold and permitting detention for months without written reasons. It further said detainees were denied the right to an interlocutory appeal before a separate court.
HRW said trials could begin three weeks after prosecutors disclosed their evidence, potentially leaving limited time for defence preparation. It also raised concerns about trials in absentia, including safeguards related to defendants’ choice of lawyers, and restrictions on defence lawyers’ ability to cross-examine witnesses.
FOLLOW NOW
