Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
World
Hannah Ellis-Petersen South Asia correspondent

Bangladesh court sentences UK MP Tulip Siddiq to two years in prison in absentia

Tulip Siddiq has been sentenced by a court in Bangladesh.
Tulip Siddiq has been sentenced by a court in Bangladesh. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian

A court in Bangladesh has sentenced the British MP Tulip Siddiq to two years in jail after a judge ruled she was complicit in corrupt land deals with her aunt, the country’s deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

In a ruling on Monday, a judge found Siddiq, the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate, guilty of misusing her “special influence” as a British politician to coerce Hasina into giving valuable pieces of land to her mother, brother and sister.

Siddiq’s mother, Sheikh Rehana, was given seven years in prison and considered the prime participant in the case.

The trial had been carried out in absentia and on Monday – neither Hasina, Siddiq, Rehana nor more than a dozen other members of her family accused in the case were in the court as the verdict was read out.

The UK does not have an extradition treaty with Bangladesh and it is unlikely Siddiq will serve the sentence.

Siddiq had denied the charges, claiming that much of the evidence being presented by prosecutors was forged. She had been put on trial as a Bangladeshi citizen, with a passport and tax ID, even though she said she had not held a Bangladeshi passport since childhood and had never paid taxes there.

After the verdict, Siddiq told the Guardian she hoped it would be met with the “contempt it deserves”. She said: “This whole process has been flawed and farcical from the beginning to the end.

“The outcome of this kangaroo court is as predictable as it is unjustified. I hope this so-called ‘verdict’ will be treated with the contempt it deserves. My focus has always been my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate and I refuse to be distracted by the dirty politics of Bangladesh.”

Last week, a group of leading Brtish lawyers, including a former Conservative justice secretary, told Bangladesh’s ambassador that the trial against Siddiq was “artificial, contrived and unfair”.

Due to their absence, the accused in the case were denied access to defence lawyers and a lawyer who attempted to represent Siddiq and others alleged she was threatened and put under house arrest.

Siddiq, a former cabinet minister, claimed had been caught up in a politically motivated attack on her aunt Hasina, whose 15-year rule of Bangladesh was marred with authoritarianism, corruption and human rights abuses.

Last month, Hasina was found guilty of crimes against humanity by a special tribunal in Dhaka, for her role in the massacre of more than 1,000 people who took part in anti-government protests last year that eventually led to her downfall.

Last week, she was given a further 21-year prison sentence on corruption charges.

Hasina has remained in exile in India since her fall from power in August 2024, and the country has yet to respond to extradition requests by Bangladesh for her to return to serve her sentence.

During Hasina’s tenure, Siddiq was pictured several times with Hasina in Bangladesh.

In January, she stepped down as Treasury minister amid allegations that she had used properties linked to the Hasina regime, though an inquiry later found she had broken no rules.

Following the verdict, a Labour party spokesperson said it did not “recognise” the corruption judgment. “The Labour party and all our elected representatives take the rule of law incredibly seriously and will always fulfil our legal responsibilities.

“As has been reported, highly regarded senior legal professionals have highlighted that Tulip Siddiq has not had access to a fair legal process in this case and has never been informed of the details of the charges against her.

“This is despite repeated requests made to the Bangladeshi authorities through her legal team.

“Anyone facing any charge should always be afforded the right to make legal representations when allegations are made against them. Given that has not happened in this case, we cannot recognise this judgment.”

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.