Britain must help Bangladesh break the cycle of political revenge
Within weeks, Bangladesh could face a confrontation with consequences far beyond its borders. Former prime minister Sheikh Hasina says she intends to return from exile in December. A death sentence awaits her, her party remains banned, and the country faces a fundamental test: can it deliver justice for grave abuses while protecting the rights of those accused?
Britain should be paying attention now. Our close ties with Bangladesh, and the deep family connections between our countries, give us a strong interest in a peaceful outcome. If diplomacy begins only when Hasina is arrested or violence erupts, it will have begun too late.
That is why fellow parliamentarians and I have written to Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, urging him to support independent justice and political reconciliation across party boundaries. Victims deserve accountability, defendants deserve fair trials, and Bangladesh deserves a future beyond recurring political revenge.
Our letter is explicit: “We seek neither immunity nor a predetermined outcome.” Serious allegations against Hasina require independent investigation and fair adjudication. The victims of the violence of July and August 2024, and of other grave abuses, deserve truth, justice and effective remedies. Their suffering must never become a weapon in a contest between parties.
The United Nations human rights office’s findings demand credible follow-up. Accountability means establishing individual responsibility through reliable evidence, tested in independent proceedings. Political office cannot confer immunity. Equally, political affiliation cannot substitute for proof. These principles must apply to former rulers and their opponents alike.
Britain should pursue four practical objectives.
First, it should seek an unequivocal written undertaking that Hasina will not be executed, backed by the legal measures necessary to make that assurance effective. Britain should also support a moratorium on capital punishment in Bangladesh. An execution cannot repair an unfair process or answer legitimate questions about the evidence.
Protection must extend beyond the death penalty. Any return requires safeguards against torture, disappearance, coercion and foreseeable violence, covering arrival, transport, court appearances and detention. Responsible officials should be identified, independent verification permitted and urgent arrangements established to address breaches. An assurance without a means of checking compliance offers little reassurance.
Second, Britain should press for effective legal remedies and meaningful defence rights. Hasina must have an effective opportunity to challenge her conviction and sentence, assisted by lawyers she selects and instructs. Any detention must have a disclosed legal basis and remain subject to prompt and continuing independent judicial scrutiny.
These are ordinary requirements of justice: confidential access to counsel, timely disclosure, adequate preparation, effective examination of witnesses and protection from intimidation. They should apply to every defendant. A safeguard available only after irreversible harm has occurred is no safeguard at all.
Human Rights Watch’s concerns about tribunal proceedings warrant examination. Reform must provide genuine remedies against selective prosecution and politically motivated detention. Changing procedures will achieve little if prosecution decisions and judicial proceedings remain vulnerable to interference. Progress must be measured by what happens in courtrooms and places of detention.
Third, we need independent scrutiny capable of establishing facts and commanding confidence. Britain should engage the UN human rights office about examining specified unresolved evidential questions and credible allegations of interference with justice. Further investigation should build on existing work, avoid unnecessary duplication and protect witnesses.
Independent observers should have meaningful access to proceedings and relevant custody safeguards, with freedom to publish their assessments. Their attendance must never become a convenient badge of legitimacy for a process they cannot properly scrutinise. Nor should establishing an inquiry delay urgent protection or credible accountability.
Fourth, Britain should offer diplomatic support for an inclusive, Bangladeshi-led process of mediation and reconciliation. This cannot be imposed from London. It must involve political parties, victims’ representatives and independent civil society, with an impartial facilitator if participants consider that helpful.
The first objectives should be achievable: commitments against political violence, retaliation and intimidation, and agreement that criminal proceedings will not be used to exclude peaceful opponents. Longer-term dialogue should address independent institutions, equal rights and political participation.
Reconciliation cannot mean forgetting victims or bargaining away accountability. Nor can justice mean dividing a nation into those entitled to rights and those deemed politically undeserving of them. A durable settlement requires space for peaceful disagreement, including for people whose political loyalties others find objectionable.
Hasina and Awami League leaders have obligations too. They must cooperate with independent investigations and lawful proceedings, reject violence and incitement, and respect the safety of victims, witnesses and opponents. Those exercising power today must meet precisely the same standards. Fundamental rights cannot depend on party allegiance.
We have asked the Foreign Secretary to instruct the British High Commission in Dhaka to coordinate engagement with Bangladesh’s government, partner missions and the UN human rights office. We have requested a written response explaining Britain’s proposed representations and its timetable for exploring mediation.
Britain cannot determine Bangladesh’s future. It can encourage safeguards that protect life, credible proceedings that serve victims, and dialogue that allows Bangladeshis to disagree without fearing imprisonment or violence. With December approaching, the time to begin that work is now.
Bob Blackman MP is a British Conservative politician who has represented Harrow East in Parliament since 2010. Born Robert John Blackman on 26 April 1956, he first entered elected office as a Member of the London Assembly for Brent and Harrow, serving from 2004 to 2008 before moving to Westminster. Throughout his parliamentary career, Blackman has played significant roles in backbench politics, serving as Joint Executive Secretary of the 1922 Committee from 2012 to 2024.
