The prosecution’s appeal seeking the death penalty for ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina and former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal has remained in limbo for more than eight months, with the prosecution yet to begin preparations for the hearing.
The prosecution appealed against the International Crimes Tribunal’s verdict, which sentenced Hasina and Kamal to imprisonment till death for crimes against humanity committed during the July uprising, alongside capital punishment on a separate set of charges.
Although the appeal has appeared on the Appellate Division’s cause list several times, the hearing has not commenced.
Prosecution sources said that the team has been prioritising preparations for other high-profile cases, including the Shapla Chattar massacre and enforced disappearance cases.
The delay has drawn scrutiny, as the International Crimes Tribunal Act contains a provision for the disposal of appeals within 60 days of filing.
However, legal experts noted that the timeframe is considered advisory rather than mandatory, meaning the appeal remains valid despite the delay.
Prosecution seeks death penalty on all charges
The prosecution filed the appeal on 15 December 2025, challenging the tribunal’s decision to award imprisonment till death on certain charges instead of capital punishment.
In its appeal, the prosecution submitted eight arguments, claiming that the nature and scale of the alleged crimes warranted the maximum penalty under the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973.
The prosecution argued that the July uprising involved grave violations of human rights and that the killings of unarmed civilians were too severe to justify any sentence short of death. It further maintained that justice required balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of the victims and the necessity of deterring future crimes.
According to the prosecution, more than 1,400 people were killed and over 25,000 injured during the unrest as a result of actions allegedly carried out under the direction of the accused.
“We believe the accused should have received the death penalty on the other charges as well, considering the scale of the crimes. That is why an appeal was filed seeking an increase in the sentences,” prosecutor Gazi MH Tamim told TIMES of Bangladesh.
Appeal referred to regular bench
The appeal was first presented before Appellate Division Chamber Court Justice Md Rezaul Haque on 1 February, who referred it to the regular bench for a full hearing.
Since then, the case has remained on the cause list of the Appellate Division without being taken up.
A prosecution source admitted that the team is currently occupied with several major cases and has not completed the requisite preparations for Hasina’s appeal.
The source added that because Hasina and Kamal have already received a death sentence on one charge, the prosecution’s urgency regarding increased penalties on the remaining charges has diminished.
Lawyers question delay
Legal experts have questioned why the prosecution has failed to take visible steps to expedite the hearing.
Supreme Court lawyer Saifur Rahman said that the delay suggested a clear lack of urgency from the prosecution.
“Considering the overall situation, it appears there is negligence and a lack of interest from the prosecution in Sheikh Hasina’s case,” he said.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan emphasised that the appeal should be resolved swiftly.
“The Appellate Division will determine whether the trial court’s verdict was correct or contained legal errors. The case should not remain pending indefinitely,” he said.
Supreme Court Bar Association Secretary Mohammad Ali also called for an early disposal, noting that the case cannot reach a final conclusion until the Appellate Division delivers its ruling.
“The public is waiting for justice,” he said.
Meanwhile, ICT Chief Prosecutor Md Aminul Islam confirmed the appeal was filed to seek an increase in sentencing, but declined to specify when the hearing would begin.
“When necessary, steps will be taken for the hearing. At present, we are prioritising other cases,” he told TIMES.
