A law firm based in the United Kingdom, Kingsley Napley LLP, has legally challenged the death sentence handed down to deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), describing the proceedings as “illegal” and contrary to the principles of justice.
In a 10-page letter sent via email, the firm – which specialises in criminal litigation and extradition – demanded the immediate cancellation of the 17 November 2025 verdict that sentenced Hasina to death in absentia.
The email was sent by Rebecca Niblock, a partner at Kingsley Napley. When contacted by TIMES of Bangladesh, Niblock confirmed the authenticity of the letter.
Chief Prosecutor of the Tribunal, Md Aminul Islam, has claimed that although no formal letter has been received, he has learned about the matter through various news reports.
Speaking to BBC Bangla, he said, “It is only natural that any letter written on behalf of Sheikh Hasina will attempt to create controversy around the tribunal or cause confusion. Once we receive the letter officially, we will share our response.”
Allegations of bias and “preconceived notions”
Hasina was convicted of crimes against humanity by a three-member tribunal led by Justice Md Golam Mortuza Mozumder for her role in the suppression of student protests in July and August 2024.
The charges included incitement to violence, ordering killings, and failing to prevent atrocities.
However, Kingsley Napley argues that the trial failed to meet international standards or uphold fundamental legal rights.
The firm claimed that the trial took place in a “highly hostile environment,” noting the May 2025 ban on Awami League political activities and the alleged intimidation of the legal defence team.
A central pillar of the firm’s challenge is the alleged lack of judicial independence. The firm claimed that the October 2024 reconstitution of the tribunal saw the appointment of judges with political affiliations.
Specifically, they questioned the role of Justice Shafiul Alam Mahmud, who was appointed to the ICT only six days after joining the High Court.
The lawyers alleged that Justice Mahmud held “preconceived notions” regarding Hasina’s guilt. They cited an August 2025 courtroom remark where he reportedly told a state-appointed lawyer: “You will try your best to save your clients from the gallows.”
According to Kingsley Napley, such comments prove the verdict was “predetermined.”
Challenges to jurisdiction, neutrality
The London-based firm also questioned the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution teams.
They criticised former chief prosecutor Md Tajul Islam, pointing to his past work as a lawyer for top Jamaat-e-Islami leaders and his participation in rallies demanding a ban on Awami League during the trial.
The letter also challenged the ICT’s jurisdiction, asserting that the August 2024 legal amendments – which expanded the tribunal’s mandate from 1971 war crimes to include the 2024 events – constituted a “legal impossibility” and an “illegal expansion” of power.
The firm argued that these cases should have been handled within the regular criminal justice system.
14-day ultimatum
Kingsley Napley warned that carrying out a death sentence following such a “flawed process” would be equivalent to “extrajudicial killing” under international law.
The firm has demanded that the verdict be declared void and legally ineffective within 14 days. If no response is received, the letter indicates that Sheikh Hasina may seek recourse through international human rights organisations.
‘A fugitive has no legal rights’
Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua told the media that the letter sent by UK-based law firm Kingsley Napley on behalf of deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina lacks any legal basis.
Commenting on the effectiveness of the 10-page document, Barua explained that a fundamental principle established in both international and domestic law is that “a fugitive has no legal rights.”
According to the barrister, legal remedies or the opportunity to appeal a verdict are strictly unavailable to an accused individual until they surrender to the court.
“You cannot flee from the law and attempt to appeal at the same time,” he told the media, emphasising that any challenge to a trial must be conducted through formal legal channels.
While Barua acknowledged that any individual is free to send a correspondence if they believe a trial was unfair, lacked due process, or denied the right to self-defence, he noted that such actions carry no “legal implications.”
He further clarified that while law firms or human rights organisations are entitled to share their observations, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) is under no legal obligation to provide a response to such communications.
Barua reiterated that if a convicted individual feels they have not received justice or were denied the opportunity for self-defence, they must engage with the formal legal system by filing an application through prescribed legal procedures, which remains impossible while in a state of flight.
