The Weaponization of Justice in Bangladesh
THE CLAIM: A Bangladeshi court has sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her niece, UK lawmaker Tulip Siddiq, in a graft case, effectively barring Hasina’s Awami League from participating in the upcoming February 12 elections. THE EVIDENCE: The court verdict, as reported, comes with notable timing. Siddiq, a Labour MP, denies the charges, calling them politically motivated. The Awami
League, founded by Hasina's father and Bangladesh's first President, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, is a dominant force in Bangladeshi politics. Hasina herself has served multiple non-consecutive terms as Prime Minister, totaling over two decades (1996-2001, 2009-2024). This conviction arrives weeks before a general election scheduled for February 12, 2026, which the Awami League is now barred from
contesting. THE CONTRADICTIONS: The immediate disqualification of a major political party, led by a former head of state, due to a conviction so proximate to an election, raises significant red flags regarding judicial independence. Bangladesh has a well-documented history of political dynasties using state institutions to consolidate power and eliminate rivals. This isn't merely about 'graft';
it's about the strategic removal of a formidable political entity from the democratic process. The invocation of 'graft' is a convenient label for what, in practice, appears to be political disqualification by legal means. THE NETWORK: The beneficiaries of this conviction are the incumbent powers who gain a clear path to victory without a formidable opponent. Conversely, the Awami League, and by