The International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh sentenced Sheikh Hasina in absentia on November 17, 2025 to death for crimes against humanity after concluding that she ordered a crackdown on a student led uprising in 2024.
Her former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal was also condemned in the same verdict. Following this ruling, Bangladesh sent an official extradition request on November 23, 2025 asking India to hand over both Hasina and Kamal so they could face justice.
The request was delivered through formal diplomatic channels. The letter emphasizes that under the bilateral extradition treaty between the two countries, India has a legal responsibility to return individuals convicted of serious crimes such as crimes against humanity. Bangladesh regards continued shelter for convicted individuals as a breach of that treaty and as a broader denial of justice toward victims of the 2024 unrest.
Bangladesh is also reportedly considering elevating the case to international levels if necessary. Officials have indicated they may take the matter to global forums such as the International Criminal Court in order to press for Hasina’s extradition and prosecution.
This recent request is not the first. Bangladesh had previously sent at least one formal extradition request in December 2024 following Hasina’s flight to India. That earlier request was submitted via a diplomatic note verbale. At the time, Indian authorities acknowledged receipt but declined to comment publicly.
In pressing for extradition now, Bangladesh frames this move not merely as retribution but as an act of justice. The convictions through the International Crimes Tribunal, the death sentences, and the formal extradition request together send a strong message: the state is committed to ensuring accountability no matter how powerful the accused once was. The government argues that only by returning Hasina and Kamal can victims of the 2024 unrest many of whom reportedly died or were injured during the crackdown get justice and the rule of law be upheld.
India has responded by stating that it has noted the tribunal verdict but has not committed to extradition. Legally, extradition under the bilateral treaty is possible because the charges against Hasina are considered serious offenses. However, the treaty allows India discretion to refuse extradition if the request is politically motivated, if procedural guarantees are not sufficient, or if the extradition is not in the interest of justice. These provisions provide a framework for delay or refusal while avoiding direct confrontation with Bangladesh.
Bangladesh maintains that granting asylum or shelter to convicted perpetrators of crimes against humanity undermines the very foundations of justice and human rights. The demand for extradition is therefore presented as a moral and legal imperative not a political bargaining chip.
Historical Context: Extradition of Former Heads of State
One notable example is Alfredo Stroessner, the former dictator of Paraguay, who fled to Brazil after being overthrown. While he was not extradited, Paraguay attempted to press for legal action, highlighting the diplomatic and legal difficulties in such cases.
Alberto Fujimori, former President of Peru, fled to Japan and later to Chile after being accused of human rights violations and corruption. Chilean courts initially detained him in 2005, and Peru formally requested his extradition. After legal battles, he was extradited to Peru in 2007, tried, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. This is considered one of the most successful modern extraditions of a former head of state.
The former Liberian president was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the civil war in Sierra Leone. Taylor fled to Nigeria but was later extradited to The Hague in 2006. He was tried and sentenced to 50 years in prison.
A more concrete example comes from Hissène Habré, the former Chadian president. Habré was arrested in Senegal in 2013 after years of exile and tried for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. Senegal ultimately extradited him to face trial, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2016. This case is widely regarded as a landmark in holding former heads of state accountable through international and domestic legal mechanisms.
Another example is Slobodan Milošević, the former president of Yugoslavia and later Serbia, who was indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. While he was not extradited from Serbia, the case demonstrates how political considerations can complicate extradition and trial for former leaders.
Bangladesh continues to stress that extradition is not optional but a legal and moral obligation in response to the crimes for which Hasina has been convicted.
This is a developing story.
Sources: Al Jazeera, Anadolu Ajansi, and DAWN News.
Comments 2