During the Awami League’s rule, Bangladesh’s judiciary—especially its apex leadership—was systematically influenced and compromised under Awami League rule. A pattern of partisan appointments, politicized verdicts, and compromised Chief Justices eroded public trust in the Supreme Court’s independence. **Highlights:** - Multiple Chief Justices during the AL rule faced allegations of executive influence or political bias under Awami League rule. - The removal of CJ S.K. Sinha in 2017 revealed the regime’s intolerance toward judicial dissent. - High-profile verdicts during this era disproportionately favoured AL interests while punishing opposition leaders. # The Era of Political Loyalty over Judicial Independence From 2008 onward, with the Awami League returning to power under Sheikh Hasina, the appointment and conduct of Bangladesh’s Chief Justices increasingly came under scrutiny. Rather than maintaining judicial neutrality, the Awami League appeared to favor judges who would align with its political agenda. During this 16-year period, multiple Chief Justices were appointed in a manner that sidelined seniority and legal distinction in favor of perceived political loyalty. The result was a captive judiciary, often unable—or unwilling—to challenge the executive. One of the earliest examples of politicized judicial elevation was Chief Justice Md. Muzammel Hossain (2011–2015), who oversaw several sensitive war crimes verdicts. While these judgments were often hailed internationally, local observers noted the politicization of trial procedures, especially when dissenting judges faced career stagnation. The Supreme Court’s upholding of capital punishment for top opposition figures (many from Jamaat-e-Islami) appeared to be judicially convenient for the ruling party’s electoral ambitions. Similarly, Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah, who served briefly as acting Chief Justice after Justice Sinha’s forced departure, was bypassed for full-term appointment, possibly due to being perceived as independent. This again underscored the regime’s preference for subservient legal figures. # The Landmark Breakdown: Surendra Kumar Sinha and the 16th Amendment Judgment (2017) The most explosive rupture between the judiciary and the executive occurred in 2017 with Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha. Appointed in 2015, Sinha presided over the landmark verdict that struck down the 16th Amendment, which had returned to Parliament the power to impeach judges—an authority that would have left the judiciary entirely vulnerable to political will. Sinha’s majority opinion warned against the “unbridled powers” of Parliament, evoking the need for constitutional balance. In response, the Awami League launched a ferocious political and media campaign against him. Senior AL leaders accused him of undermining democracy and even questioned his personal integrity. The result was unprecedented: Sinha was forced to leave the country, later submitting his resignation from abroad. Within months, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) filed money laundering charges against him. While the AL regime portrayed these charges as proof of judicial corruption, many legal scholars and international observers saw it as a targeted vendetta against a defiant Chief Justice. Sinha’s 2018 memoir “A Broken Dream” confirmed fears of political persecution, detailing how military intelligence officers coerced his resignation and orchestrated public smears. In 2021, Justice Sinha was convicted in absentia and sentenced to 11 years, an event widely seen as both political retribution and a message to future Chief Justices: resist the executive at your peril. # Judges Who Served Quietly: From Hasan Foez Siddique to Khairul Haque Following Sinha’s ouster, a series of Chief Justices served without confronting the executive—thus largely avoiding controversy. - Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain (2018–2021): His tenure saw no major institutional pushback against growing executive control. Under his watch, the 2018 national elections, marred by massive allegations of rigging and opposition suppression, went unchallenged in court. Several petitions brought by opposition parties were dismissed or never seriously entertained. - Justice Hasan Foez Siddique (2021–2023): Though he publicly warned about corruption in lower courts, he made no structural attempts to restore judicial independence. In farewell remarks, he even acknowledged that political divisions among lawyers had harmed the judiciary—a rare admission, but devoid of reform strategy. - Justice A.B.M. Khairul Haque (served earlier, but influential post-retirement): Known for authoring the 2010 verdict that declared the Caretaker Government unconstitutional, Khairul Haque’s judgment paved the way for Awami League to oversee elections directly—which in practice, eliminated fair competition. Many legal scholars argue this legally sanctioned autocratization was the true death knell for democratic balance in Bangladesh. These justices may not have faced the dramatic fate of Sinha, but their passivity—or quiet collaboration—ensured that judicial subservience became the new norm under Awami League rule. # The Broader Pattern: Verdicts for the Ruling Class, Jail for the Opposition Beyond the Chief Justices themselves, the pattern of verdicts during the AL’s rule reveals a deeply compromised judicial apparatus: - BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia was convicted and imprisoned in the Zia Orphanage Trust case, a trial many observers—including international rights groups—criticized for its procedural inconsistencies and election-year timing (2018). - In contrast, corruption charges against key AL figures—such as Abul Hossain in the Padma Bridge graft scandal—were either dropped or dismissed by politically convenient verdicts. - Election petitions, torture allegations during police remand, and suppression of dissent through the Digital Security Act (DSA) were met with silence or rejection by a judiciary that appeared increasingly deferential to the state. Moreover, lower court judges frequently complained—off-record—about pressure from intelligence agencies, especially the DGFI, in high-profile political cases. This intimidation often trickled up the chain, affecting bail decisions, verdict timelines, and case dismissals. # Awami League’s Illegal Legal Legacy—A Judiciary on a Leash From 2008 to 2024, Bangladesh’s highest judicial office—the Chief Justice—ceased to be an independent constitutional guardian. Under the Awami League, the Supreme Court transitioned from a forum of last-resort justice to a rubber stamp for executive power. While corruption, favoritism, and inefficiency existed before, the Awami League’s long rule institutionalized these vices through targeted appointments, public character assassinations, and strategic prosecutions. The ouster and punishment of Justice Sinha was a turning point, making it clear that the judiciary would be allowed to function only within parameters defined by the ruling party. In the end, the constitutional balance envisioned in Bangladesh’s founding document has tilted so far toward the executive that rebuilding an independent judiciary will require not just legal reform, but political will, cultural change, and systemic reckoning.