LEGAL ANALYSIS ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN EXTRADITION TREATY INVOLVING SHEIKH HASINA IS JUSTIFIED

News By TIRTHANKAR MUKHERJEE

The question of whether any proposed or contemplated extradition treaty concerning former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is “justified” cannot be answered through emotion, political undercurrents, or geopolitical anxieties.

It must be analysed strictly through the lenses of international law, constitutional safeguards, human rights norms, and judicial prudence.

1. Extradition: A Legal Instrument, Not a Political Mechanism

Extradition treaties exist to ensure that individuals accused or convicted of serious offences do not evade judicial proceedings by merely crossing territorial borders.

The legitimacy of any extradition action depends on:

Compliance with international treaty obligations,

Protection of due process rights,

Absence of political motivation, and

Judicial scrutiny by the receiving State.

Therefore, extradition can be justified only when supported by demonstrable, objective, and law-based grounds.

2. Bar on Political Offences and Political Persecution

International extradition law—mirrored in the UN Model Law on Extradition—recognises an unambiguous safeguard:

> No individual may be extradited for a political offence or where extradition may result in political persecution.

Accordingly:

If the charges are purely criminal, supported by evidence, and unrelated to political transitions, extradition may be justified.

However, if the allegations arise from political rivalry, regime change, retaliatory governance, or partisan animus, extradition becomes legally impermissible.

This principle protects the neutrality and integrity of judicial systems worldwide.

3. Human Rights Safeguards and Fair Trial Standards

Even where criminal charges exist, extradition is permissible only if the individual is guaranteed:

A fair, impartial, and independent trial,

No risk of torture, custodial violence, or degrading treatment, and

Detention conditions consistent with international human rights standards.

These protections are absolute and non-negotiable.

4. Judicial Oversight: A Constitutional Imperative

No extradition may be executed merely on executive determination. Judicial oversight is mandatory.

Courts must examine:

Prima facie evidence,

Nature and genuineness of charges,

Absence of political motivation,

Risk to human rights, and

Compliance with Article 21, which guarantees life and personal liberty.

This ensures that extradition remains a judicially supervised, constitutionally compliant process, not a geopolitical tool.

5. When Extradition Could Be Justified — and When It Cannot

Extradition involving Sheikh Hasina could be justified only if:

The charges are strictly criminal, substantiated, and devoid of political colour;

A valid extradition treaty provides legal reciprocity;

Her fundamental rights, including fair trial and dignified treatment, are fully protected;

The requesting State demonstrates that the process is lawful, transparent, and non-retaliatory.

Extradition would not be justified if:

The request emerges from political transition, vendetta, or partisan motivations;

There exists any credible threat to her life, liberty, or dignity;

The proceedings lack impartiality, transparency, or judicial integrity.

As National Chairman of the Judicial Council, I reiterate that the justification for any extradition request must be determined not by political climate or diplomatic expediency, but by the timeless principles of justice, due process, and human rights.

Extradition is not a weapon.

It is a constitutional mechanism, valid only when insulated from political bias and anchored firmly in the rule of law.