The recent in absentia conviction in Bangladesh of Sheikh Hasina (and her two children) for corruption relating to the allocation of land plots in Purbachal — together with the expected judgment on Monday against her niece Tulip Siddiq MP for similar offences — should sharpen the government’s focus on the urgent need to reform the country’s laws governing trials in absentia. 

Under current Bangladeshi law, for offences that do not carry the death penalty (for example under the International Crimes Tribunal where at least a court appointed lawyer is allowed) neither the accused nor the court is permitted to appoint a lawyer to represent a fugitive defendant. As a result, when these trials take place, the prosecution simply presents its case, and the judge decides whether to convict.

The absence of any legal representation for the accused is a direct and obvious breach of the most basic fair-trial standards. Proceedings of this kind can fairly be described as kangaroo courts, especially when combined with a lower judiciary whose lack of independence is widely recognised.

These abusive in-absentia proceedings are far from being unique to the current interim government period. The law is not new. The same kind of proceedings took place repeatedly under both the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League. While Sheikh Hasina now criticises such trials — and is right to do so — she should acknowledge that she and her party also made extensive use of in absentia trials while in power, with courts routinely convicting individuals, often political opponents, without the presence of any defence counsel.

Bangladesh as a regional outlier
In India, the law (section 356 of BNSS) governing in-absentia trials not only allows legal representation for fugitive accused persons, it also permits fugitives themselves to instruct their own lawyers. The difference in rights and safeguards between Bangladesh and India is stark.

In Pakistan, the gap is even wider. Sheikh Hasina and Tulip Siddiq could not even be prosecuted there as fugitives: such trials are permitted only for certain terrorism offences, not for corruption. At most, a Pakistani court could record prosecution evidence in their absence. Moreover, Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees citizens a Right to a Fair Trial (Article 10A), and its higher courts have repeatedly overturned convictions where those in-absentia proceedings that do take place failed to meet that standard.

The retributive state
Despite the extensive discussions that have taken place since 5 August 2024 on the reforms needed to build a “Bangladesh 2.0”, there has not been a single serious proposal to reform in-absentia trials—for example, by allowing them only when the accused is provided with proper legal representation.

Similarly, despite wide-ranging debates about constitutional reform, including within the Consensus Commission that produced the July Charter, there has been no consideration of amending the Constitution to enshrine a clear Right to a Fair Trial.

Why this lack of interest—especially when viewed alongside the government’s indifference to ending arbitrary detentions?

The answer is straightforward: the interim government, together with the newly resurgent BNP and Jamaat and the powerful students lobby, has no incentive to dismantle the country’s repressive state machinery if doing so would restrict their ability to punish political opponents. Protecting due process does not serve their political objectives.

As has happened so many times before, Bangladesh’s rulers continue to operate a retributive state, apparently without the slightest embarrassment.