Can Sheikh Hasina be extradited from India to Bangladesh to stand trial? Premium

Bangladesh seeks extradition of ousted leader Sheikh Hasina from India under bilateral treaty amid criminal charges.

The chief prosecutor of Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has announced plans to seek the extradition of ousted leader Sheikh Hasina from neighbouring India. “As the main perpetrator has fled the country, we will start the legal procedure to bring her back,” Mohammad Tajul Islam told reporters on September 8, 2024. The tribunal was established in 2010 by the former Bangladesh Prime Minister to investigate crimes committed during the 1971 independence war from Pakistan.

Ms. Hasina sought refuge in India in early August after a mass uprising compelled her to step down. Since her departure, numerous criminal cases have been lodged against her and her aides, encompassing charges of murder, torture, abduction, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The new interim government in Dhaka has already revoked Ms. Hasina’s diplomatic passport. Additionally, India and Bangladesh have a bilateral extradition treaty in place that could allow for her return to face trial.

Under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973, Bangladeshi courts can proceed with criminal trials even in Ms. Hasina’s absence. However, this is bound to raise raises concerns about the fairness of the proceedings, and adherence to due process, while also complicating the enforcement of judicial orders. Therefore, the extradition of the former Prime Minister is considered crucial.

In 2013, India and Bangladesh executed an extradition treaty as a strategic measure to address insurgency and terrorism along their shared borders. It was subsequently amended in 2016 to ease the process of exchange of fugitives wanted by both nations. The treaty has facilitated the transfer of several notable political prisoners. For instance, in 2020, two convicts involved in the 1975 assassination of Ms. Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, were extradited to Bangladesh for execution. Similarly, India successfully secured the extradition of Anup Chetia, the general secretary of the banned United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), who had spent 18 years imprisoned in Dhaka.

The treaty mandates the extradition of individuals charged with or convicted of crimes that warrant a minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment. A key requirement for extradition is the principle of dual criminality, meaning that the offence must be punishable in both countries. Since the charges against Ms. Hasina are prosecutable in India, and the penalties for her alleged crimes are also substantial, she qualifies for extradition on these grounds. Additionally, the treaty encompasses within its ambit attempts to commit, as well as aiding, abetting, inciting, or acting as an accomplice in such crimes.

Notably, the 2016 amendment to the treaty substantially lowered the threshold for extradition by removing the requirement to furnish concrete evidence against the offender. Under Article 10 of the treaty, only an arrest warrant issued by a competent court in the requesting country is now sufficient to initiate the extradition process.

Article 6 of the treaty stipulates that extradition may be refused if the offence is of a “political nature”. However, there are stringent limitations on this particular exemption. A host of offences such as murder, terrorism-related crimes, and kidnapping, are explicitly excluded from being classified as political. Given that several of the charges against Ms. Hasina — such as murder, enforced disappearance, and torture — fall outside the scope of this exemption, it is unlikely that India will be able to justify these accusations as political transgressions to deny extradition.