2025年11月17日，孟加拉國際犯罪法庭對前總理謝赫·哈西娜作出缺席判決，認定她在2024年全國性抗議活動期間犯下罪行，並判處她死刑。此判決一出，立即引發國內外媒體與社會的廣泛關注。

根據孟加拉國媒體報導，檢方對哈西娜提出五項指控，指稱其在2024年8月4日爆發的全國性抗議活動中涉及刑事行為。根據孟加拉國法律規定，在逃的被告無權對判決提出上訴，因此哈西娜在目前的境況下無法行使上訴權。判決宣告後，哈西娜透過聲明表示，法庭對她作出的判決「帶有偏見且出於政治動機」，強調此判決並非公正司法裁定。

回顧事件經過，2024年8月4日，孟加拉國爆發全國範圍的大規模抗議活動，社會秩序一度緊張。次日，哈西娜宣布辭去總理職務，隨後乘坐飛機前往印度，自此一直滯留在印度境內。媒體指出，哈西娜辭職與抗議活動的關聯引發了國內政治局勢的不穩定，也使她的境外行蹤成為此次國際犯罪法庭缺席審理的重要因素。

整體而言，此次判決不僅在孟加拉國政壇引發震盪，也引起國際關注。支持者與反對者對判決的解讀存在巨大分歧，一方面有人認為這是追究政治領袖責任的司法行動，另一方面則有人質疑判決的公正性與政治背景。後續哈西娜在印度的行蹤、國際社會的反應，以及孟加拉國內政治局勢的演變，都將對該國未來政局走向產生深遠影響。

On November 17, 2025, the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh delivered a default judgment against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, convicting her of crimes committed during nationwide protests in 2024 and sentencing her to death. The ruling immediately drew widespread attention from both domestic and international media, highlighting deep political tensions within the country.

According to local reports, prosecutors brought five charges against Hasina, alleging her involvement in criminal actions during the mass protests that erupted on August 4, 2024. Under Bangladeshi law, a defendant who is absconding is not permitted to appeal, meaning Hasina currently has no legal recourse to contest the judgment. Following the announcement, Hasina issued a statement describing the court’s decision as “biased and politically motivated,” emphasizing that the ruling did not reflect an impartial judicial process.

The events leading up to the judgment date back to the August 2024 protests, which swept across Bangladesh and caused significant disruptions. On the day after the protests began, Hasina resigned from her position as prime minister. She subsequently flew to India and has remained there since. Media coverage has noted that her resignation in the wake of the protests contributed to political instability at home and played a key role in the tribunal’s decision to conduct the trial in absentia.

Overall, the tribunal’s ruling has sent shockwaves through Bangladesh’s political landscape and attracted international scrutiny. Public opinion is sharply divided: some view the judgment as a necessary step in holding political leaders accountable, while others question the fairness of the proceedings and suggest political motivations may have influenced the decision. Hasina’s continued presence in India, the response of the international community, and the unfolding domestic political developments will all play critical roles in shaping the future trajectory of Bangladesh’s governance.