The High Court (HC) on Sunday granted a petition for preparing the paper book at its own cost to file an appeal against a 7-year conviction to BNP Chairperson and former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia in the Zia Charitable Trust graft case.

This legal order shows how the legal system was used as a tool for political repression by the ousted Awami League government, focusing on Khaleda Zia’s case as an example of the wider pattern of judicial harassment facing opposition leaders in Bangladesh. It’s a stark example of judicial politicisation during the fascist Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina who fled away from the country on August 5 following a student-mass movement against her government. It underscores a recurring theme in Bangladesh's political landscape: the government's alleged weaponisation of legal cases against political opponents.

The Zia Charitable Trust graft case has drawn significant criticism since its inception. In October 2018, a Dhaka court sentenced Khaleda Zia and three others to seven years in prison, along with a fine, in connection with allegations of misappropriation of funds. The court also ordered the confiscation of 42 kathas of land purchased for the trust. Zia’s legal team has repeatedly argued that the case was politically motivated, designed to discredit her and undermine the opposition party, BNP, ahead of critical elections. The trial process itself has faced accusations of bias, with claims that due process was sidelined in favour of reaching a predetermined verdict that would incapacitate one of the ruling party’s primary rivals.

On November 3, the High Court allowed Zia’s legal team to prepare the paper book for her appeal against the conviction at their own cost, a move that reflects both the financial and procedural challenges opposition figures face in seeking justice. Ordinarily, the state bears the cost of preparing paper books for appeals, but this ruling implies that Zia’s team must independently shoulder the financial burden, potentially adding another layer of bureaucratic delay. By enforcing such conditions, the judicial system inadvertently highlights how financial constraints and administrative technicalities can serve as instruments to prolong legal battles and delay justice, effectively denying swift and fair hearings to politically targeted individuals.

Khaleda Zia’s situation is emblematic of a larger trend where legal cases have been used as instruments of political harassment under the current government. Numerous opposition leaders and activists have faced charges, often on grounds that critics argue are exaggerated or fabricated. Many of these cases remain unresolved, perpetuating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among political rivals and restricting their ability to campaign or organize.

For instance, charges brought against BNP leaders frequently coincide with periods of political tension or significant national events, raising concerns that these cases are filed with the intent of weakening opposition efforts. The legal delays and indefinite postponements often associated with these cases seem to reflect a strategy aimed at keeping opposition leaders entangled in the legal system, unable to focus on their political agenda. Such a tactic aligns with the theory of "lawfare," where legal proceedings are strategically employed to incapacitate political adversaries.

The politicisation of Bangladesh’s judiciary has led to widespread scepticism about its independence, particularly in cases involving high-profile political figures. Observers note that, since the Awami League came to power, judicial proceedings involving opposition leaders have increasingly been perceived as politically driven rather than impartial and fair. Critics argue that the judicial system's entanglement with political motives compromises the principle of separation of powers, undermining the judiciary's role as a check on executive overreach.

The BNP has consistently argued that Khaleda Zia’s case, along with similar cases against other BNP leaders, exemplifies how the government exploits the judiciary to suppress opposition voices. This politicization not only threatens the fundamental fairness of the judicial process but also erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s role as an impartial institution. When political expediency overrides justice, the rule of law suffers, diminishing the public’s belief in the courts as protectors of rights and arbiters of impartial justice.

International watchdogs and rights organizations have expressed concern over Bangladesh’s increasing use of legal harassment to suppress dissent. Several organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have highlighted the Zia Charitable Trust case as part of a broader pattern of repressive measures targeting opposition voices. The United Nations and various foreign governments have also expressed concern over the declining political freedom in Bangladesh, citing the high number of cases filed against opposition members as a disturbing trend toward authoritarianism.

The Zia Charitable Trust graft case underscores the urgent need for reforms to protect the judiciary from political influence. Experts argue that reforms are necessary to ensure that politically motivated cases do not stifle democratic competition. Strengthening institutional checks and establishing mechanisms to ensure judicial independence are critical steps toward restoring the public’s confidence in the legal system.

International observers argue that the government must demonstrate a commitment to fair trials and impartial justice, especially in cases involving opposition leaders. This includes ending practices that allow the judiciary to become an instrument of political vendettas. True judicial independence would empower the courts to hold both ruling and opposition figures accountable, ensuring that justice is administered without prejudice.