Waseqa Ayesha🇧🇩ওয়াসিকা আয়শা

⁨Denying Sheikh Hasina's Right to Return: Bangladesh in Breach of Its Constitution and International Law --- A passport is not a favour granted by any government. Under the Constitution and international treaties, the right to return to one's own country belongs to every citizen. Sheikh Hasina, five-time Prime Minister of Bangladesh and daughter of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding architect and Father of the Nation, has been compelled to remain outside the country since August 2024. The trial held in her absence has raised serious concerns internationally: the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed regret over the sentence, and Human Rights Watch stated that the trial failed to meet international standards. Her resolve, however, remains firm. Determined to stand beside a people in distress, she has decided to return in December. On 9 November, through lawyers at London-based Matrix Chambers, she applied to the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi for a new passport and national identity card. Yet State Minister for Foreign Affairs Humaiun Kobir has declared that Bangladesh does not give "a passport to a terrorist". The Delhi-based Rights and Risks Analysis Group (RRAG) has described this position as a violation of fundamental rights and has called on the United Nations to intervene. The question, then, is a single one: can a citizen be denied the right to return to their homeland without any basis in law, solely on the word of a minister? The Constitution, the higher judiciary and international law give the same answer: no. ▪️ What the Constitution says • Article 36: Subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, every citizen has the right to leave and re-enter Bangladesh. • Article 7: All powers of the Republic belong to the people, and may be exercised only under, and by the authority of, the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; no ministerial declaration or executive decision stands above it. • Article 31: To enjoy the protection of the law is the inalienable right of every citizen "wherever he may be". Even while abroad, Sheikh Hasina remains within this protection. • Article 27: All citizens are equal before the law. • Article 32: No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. • Article 26: Any law inconsistent with fundamental rights is void. ▪️ Judicial precedent In Durnity Daman Commission v. G.B. Hossain and Others [74 DLR (AD) 1], decided on 27 September 2021, the Appellate Division held that restrictions under Article 36 may be imposed only through enacted law and only where reasonably necessary in the public interest; restricting freedom of movement by executive order without the backing of law is unconstitutional. Since then, the higher judiciary has applied this principle as settled law. There is no law in Bangladesh prohibiting a citizen from entering the country, and the government has so far cited none. On what legal basis, then, can a state minister's verbal declaration strip a citizen of a constitutional right? ▪️ The national identity card: recognition of citizenship Sheikh Hasina is a citizen of Bangladesh by birth; no legal process has ever been initiated to revoke her citizenship. A national identity card is not a favour; it is the state's recognition of a citizen's identity. To withhold it while her citizenship remains intact is to deny a citizen the state's recognition of who she is. ▪️ What international law says • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 13(2): Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country. • UDHR, Article 15: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. • UDHR, Articles 10 and 11: The right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. • ICCPR, Article 12(4): No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter their own country. Bangladesh acceded to the Covenant in 2000 and is legally bound by it. • UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27: The right to return includes the right to obtain a passport; there are few, if any, circumstances in which depriving a person of this right could be reasonable. • ICCPR, Article 14: The state is obliged to guarantee every person a fair trial in full. ▪️ The extradition treaty is no excuse to withhold a passport According to RRAG's analysis, the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty contains no provision allowing a state to refuse a passport to a person subject to an extradition request. On the contrary, Article 20 of the treaty provides that it shall not affect the rights and obligations of the two states arising from international conventions. Both countries are parties to the ICCPR, so the right to return remains intact even in the context of extradition. Moreover, issuing travel documents to a citizen who wishes to return home is established international practice. ▪️ The state's contradiction On 5 August 2024, Sheikh Hasina was flown to India under military arrangement, aboard a Bangladesh Air Force C-130 aircraft. Since 23 December 2024, first the interim government and then the BNP government have sought her extradition, repeatedly blaming India. Yet when she herself announced her return and her intention to take part in the legal process, the same state refused her the documents to come home. The question arises: does the government genuinely want a legal process, or does it simply want to prevent her return? From a government that came to power promising to restore human rights and the rule of law, yet under whose watch people are remanded on allegations of chanting "Joy Bangla", it may be hard to expect respect for a former Prime Minister's rights. But it is essential to demand it. ▪️ The right to return: the role of the international human rights system Without a passport and national identity card before December, Sheikh Hasina's right to return will be rendered meaningless in practice. As a State Party to the ICCPR, Bangladesh is bound to protect this right; where the state fails, the international human rights system must act swiftly. The following is expected of the relevant institutions: • Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Under its mandate pursuant to General Assembly resolution 48/141, to engage with the government before December and, through public statements, remind it of its obligations under Article 12(4) of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 27. • UN Special Rapporteurs: For the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to issue an urgent appeal asking under what law the application is being refused, and how the state will guarantee the fair trial standards of Article 14 of the ICCPR. • UN Human Rights Committee: To include the matter in the List of Issues and Concluding Observations in its review of Bangladesh under Article 40 of the ICCPR. • UN Human Rights Council: Within the Universal Periodic Review established under General Assembly resolution 60/251, to recommend that Bangladesh guarantee its citizens' right to return. • The Commonwealth: In light of the human rights and rule of law commitments of the Commonwealth Charter (2013), to open an immediate dialogue with Bangladesh. • The European Union: Given that the "Everything But Arms" trade preferences (Regulation (EU) No 978/2012) are linked to compliance with the ICCPR, to raise the matter urgently in the EU-Bangladesh dialogue and in the European Parliament. • Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: To monitor and document, impartially, the handling of the application in light of the right to return and international fair trial standards. These expectations take no side on any verdict; they stand for a universal right. If the international community does not act now, a citizen's right to return will yield to executive decision, setting a troubling precedent for the international human rights system itself. ▪️ Final word: law or power? For nearly two years, the state, first under the interim government and now under the BNP government, has sought Sheikh Hasina's return while blaming India. Today, when she herself seeks to come back, that same state stands in her way. No law has been cited so far; there is only a state minister's word and a demeaning label. This is the face of governance today: people are remanded on allegations of chanting "Joy Bangla", lives are lost to mob violence, and arbitrary arrests are used to suppress dissent. It is from this reality that Sheikh Hasina has decided to return. She will not walk away from her duty to stand beside people who today feel unsafe and voiceless. As the daughter of Bangabandhu, her bond with this land and its people cannot be severed by an executive declaration. Articles 7 and 36 of the Constitution are on her side. The principle laid down by the Appellate Division is on her side. Article 12(4) of the ICCPR is on her side. Against her stands only the obstinacy of power. If the government does not abandon that obstinacy and return to the path of law before December, it will bear responsibility not only for depriving a citizen of her rights, but for breaching its own Constitution and its international commitments. The world is watching, and so are the people of Bangladesh. Returning to one's own country is no one's favour to grant; it is a right. And it is with that right that she seeks to return, head held high, to her own people. — Roudra Rudra, Political Analyst References: Reuters (9 November 2026); Associated Press (9 November 2026); Rights and Risks Analysis Group and Asian Centre for Human Rights (9 November 2026); Human Rights Watch (5 October 2026); Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh; Durnity Daman Commission v. G.B. Hossain, 74 DLR (AD) 1; UDHR; ICCPR; UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27; India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty (2013); Regulation (EU) No 978/2012; Commonwealth Charter (2013). References: • Reuters, 9 Nov 2026: reuters.com/world/asia-pacif… • Associated Press, 9 Nov 2026: arabnews.com/world/banglades… • RRAG & Asian Centre for Human Rights, 9 Nov 2026: dy365live.com/international/… • Human Rights Watch, 5 Oct 2026: hrw.org/news/2026/10/05/bang… • Constitution of Bangladesh: bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367… • ACC v. G.B. Hossain, 74 DLR (AD) 1: mahbub-law.com/case-comment-… • UDHR: un.org/en/about-us/universal… • ICCPR: ohchr.org/en/instruments-mec… • UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27: digitallibrary.un.org/record… • India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, 2013: mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreat… • Regulation (EU) No 978/2012: eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/20… • Commonwealth Charter, 2013: thecommonwealth.org/charter #SheikhHasina #Bangladesh ⁩

SHEIKH HASINA’S RIGHT TO RETURN: RRAG SEEKS UN INTERVENTION The Rights and Risks Analysis Group (RRAG) has urged the UN Secretary-General, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Special Rapporteurs to intervene over Bangladesh’s alleged denial of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s constitutional and fundamental right to return home. Citing Article 36 of Bangladesh’s Constitution and international human rights law, RRAG argues that every Bangladeshi citizen has the right to leave and re-enter the country, and that denying her a passport or travel document to obstruct her return has no legal basis. No government can arbitrarily deny a citizen the right to return to their own country. Read more: rightsrisks.org/by-country/b… #SheikhHasina #Bangladesh