UK MP Tulip Siddiq sentenced in Bangladesh land case

Published: 01 December 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A court in Bangladesh has sentenced British MP Tulip Siddiq to two years in prison in absentia, accusing her of exerting improper influence in a series of alleged corrupt land deals linked to her aunt, Bangladesh’s deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina. The ruling, which immediately sparked international scrutiny, was delivered in Dhaka on Monday after months of proceedings marked by controversy, criticism, and questions about due process.

According to the judgment, the court concluded that Siddiq had abused her “special influence” as a British lawmaker to persuade Hasina to allocate valuable state-owned land to Siddiq’s mother, Sheikh Rehana, along with Siddiq’s brother and sister. Rehana received the harshest sentence among the accused, being handed seven years in prison and labelled the primary beneficiary of the alleged scheme. More than a dozen members of the extended Hasina family—none of whom were present at the trial—were also found guilty.

The trial was conducted entirely in absentia, a fact that immediately drew condemnation from legal experts and political figures in Britain. Because the United Kingdom has no extradition treaty with Bangladesh, it remains virtually certain that Siddiq will not serve the prison sentence issued by the Dhaka court.

The Labour MP, who represents Hampstead and Highgate, strongly rejected the ruling and dismissed the entire process as deeply flawed. Speaking after the verdict, Siddiq said the judgment deserved “the contempt it deserves,” calling the proceedings “farcical” and “predictable.” She insisted that the evidence used to implicate her had been forged and that she had not held a Bangladeshi passport since childhood, making her prosecution as a Bangladeshi citizen improper and politically motivated.

Siddiq argued that the charges stemmed from an attempt to target her aunt, Sheikh Hasina, whose controversial and authoritarian 15-year rule ended abruptly in 2024 after mass protests, a collapse of political support, and sweeping allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Since her fall from power, Hasina has been found guilty in several cases, including a charge of crimes against humanity tied to the killing of more than 1,000 protesters. She has also been sentenced to a further 21 years on corruption charges. Hasina has remained in exile in India since August 2024, and India has yet to respond to Bangladesh’s formal extradition requests.

The political context surrounding the case has led many observers to view the trial as part of a wider campaign aimed at dismantling the remaining influence of the once-dominant Hasina family. The prosecution’s approach has raised substantial concerns within the international legal community. Last week, a group of prominent British lawyers—including a former Conservative justice secretary—wrote to Bangladesh’s ambassador in London, describing the trial as “artificial, contrived and unfair.”

According to accounts from Dhaka, defence lawyers were not permitted to represent the accused due to their absence. One lawyer who attempted to speak on behalf of Siddiq and others claimed she was threatened and placed under house arrest, further deepening fears about judicial independence under Bangladesh’s current administration.

Tulip Siddiq, a former Treasury minister, has faced growing political pressure over her familial ties to Hasina. While she stepped down from her ministerial post earlier this year amid allegations of using properties linked to her aunt’s regime, an internal inquiry later found she had broken no parliamentary rules. Still, images of Siddiq with Hasina during past visits to Bangladesh have circulated widely in recent months, fueling speculation and scrutiny.

In the wake of the verdict, the Labour Party issued a statement emphasising its commitment to the rule of law while firmly rejecting the legitimacy of the judgment. A party spokesperson said that Siddiq had not been given the opportunity to understand the charges, nor to participate in the legal process through proper representation. Despite repeated requests by her legal team, Bangladeshi authorities did not provide formal documentation of the accusations.

The party stressed that access to legal representation is a fundamental right and that any proceedings denying such rights cannot be recognised as valid under international standards. The statement highlighted concerns raised by senior British legal professionals, adding that the integrity of the process had been severely compromised.

For Siddiq, the ruling underscores what she describes as a politically orchestrated attack. She maintains that her focus remains on serving her constituents in Hampstead and Highgate and insists that she refuses to be drawn into what she characterises as Bangladesh’s “dirty politics.” Her position has garnered support among Labour colleagues, who argue that the charges are part of a broader attempt to dismantle the Hasina family legacy through judicial means rather than credible legal process.

The verdict is expected to heighten tensions between the UK and Bangladesh, particularly as London weighs the diplomatic implications of dismissing a foreign court’s ruling against one of its elected lawmakers. International rights organisations are also monitoring the situation closely, warning that the case may reflect a wider erosion of judicial fairness in Bangladesh following Hasina’s fall.

As of now, Bangladesh has not indicated any further action against Siddiq beyond the verdict itself, though analysts note that additional cases against members of the Hasina family are likely in the coming months. With Hasina still in exile and political divisions deepening, the legal battles surrounding her family members appear far from over.

For Tulip Siddiq, the outcome marks another chapter in a complex and politically charged saga that spans continents and family history. Yet, despite the weight of the ruling, the absence of an extradition channel and widespread doubts about the fairness of the proceedings mean the practical consequences for the MP remain limited. What lingers instead is a political and diplomatic storm that is likely to continue reverberating across London and Dhaka alike.