Home
+
Published : 27 Nov 2025, 05:52 PM
A stunned silence swept across the packed courtroom when Judge Mohammad Abdullah Al Mamun paused mid-observation and asked: “Sheikh Hasina is a political leader, a four-time prime minister. Why does she need so much money, so much wealth?”
In a scathing rebuke during the verdict over the former prime minister’s plot graft case on Thursday, the judge went on to say he was “astonished” by the extent of the wrongdoing before reading out convictions against Hasina, her son and her daughter.
The Dhaka Special Judge Judge Abdullah then read out sentencing in three cases.
The judge added, “Here, RAJUK and the Ministry of Housing and Public Works have done wrong; Hasina has been involved in wrongdoing and has committed fraud.”
“She nurtures so much greed for wealth!” he added.
The court sentenced Hasina to a total of 21 years in jail across the three cases involving the allocation of plots in Dhaka’s Purbachal New Town Project.
Her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy and daughter Saima Wazed Putul, each charged alongside her in one of the cases, were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
Hasina was fined Tk 300,000, while Joy and Putul were fined Tk 100,000 each. Failure to pay will add another six to 18 months to Hasina’s term, while both Joy and Putul will face an extra six months.
The only suspect in custody, former RAJUK member Khurshid Alam, was brought to the Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court lock-up at around 9:30am on Thursday.
He was taken to the courtroom at 10:55am, with the judge arriving at 11:23am to begin reading out the verdict against Hasina and 11 others.
In his detailed observation, the judge cited a report published on Sept 5 last year that alleged Hasina had abused her authority to obtain six plots on Road 203, Sector 27 of the diplomatic zone of the Purbachal New Town under the names of herself and her family members, in collusion with “dishonest officers” through corruption and illegal means.
“Then the ACC [Anti-Corruption Commission] formed a team and started investigating the corruption related to the allotment of plots in the names of Hasina and her family members.
“Based on the investigation report, the ACC allowed the filing of a case on Jan 12. Then the chargesheet was filed,” he said.
The judge said, under RAJUK rules, no plot may be allocated without an application from the prospective allottee. Rule 5 requires that applications must be submitted on the prescribed form. Despite Hasina having submitted no application, a note was initiated at the Ministry of Housing and Public Works on Jul 18, 2022, to allocate a RAJUK plot in her favour, in violation of Rule 13A(2)(ii), on the instructions of the then housing state minister Sharif Ahmed.
The judge said the note was signed by Purabi Goldar, Saiful Islam Sarkar, Kazi Wasi Uddin, Shahid Ullah Khandker and Sharif. The next day, Jul 19, a letter signed by Purabi was sent to the RAJUK chairman requesting that a plot be allocated to Hasina.
On Jul 27, at a RAJUK board meeting, Anisur Rahman, Shafiul Haque, Khurshid, Nasir Uddin and Shamsuddin Ahmed adopted a resolution recommending the allocation of a plot to Hasina. This recommendation was made despite her failure to submit any application in the prescribed form, breaching both Rule 5 and Rule 13A(2)(ii).
The court observed that, on Jul 27, a letter signed by RAJUK deputy director Nayeb Ali Sharif informed Hasina that she had been selected for a 10-katha plot in the Purbachal New Town Project under Rule 13(A)(1)(a). She was requested to submit a notarised affidavit and other documents by Aug 31.
The affidavit, to be executed on Tk 300 non-judicial stamp and attested by a notary public, was required to state that neither the applicant nor her spouse, family members or dependants had previously received any plot allocation within RAJUK’s jurisdiction or from any other government or semi-government agency.
According to the judge, Hasina submitted an affidavit to RAJUK; however, it was not sworn before either a notary public or a first-class magistrate. The affidavit only stated that she had not received any plot in her own name and made no mention of the 1973 lease deed under which her husband, M Wazed Ali, had been allocated government land.
Because the affidavit had not been attested by a notary public, it was legally void and could not be considered by RAJUK. Nevertheless, on the basis of this unlawful and ineffective affidavit, and through the collusion of the suspect, a temporary allotment letter was issued on Jul 31.
The judge noted that the temporary allotment set the price of the plot at Tk 300,000 per katha, bringing the total cost of a 10-katha plot to Tk 3 million. The first instalment, Tk 1.2 million, was required to be deposited by Sept 30, 2022. On Aug 3 that year, a pay order for Tk 1.2 million was deposited in favour of RAJUK from the Sonali Bank Ganabhaban branch under Hasina’s name.
On the same day, the final allotment of Plot 9, Road 203 of Sector 27 in the diplomatic zone was issued in favour of Hasina. After payment of the set value, a recommendation was made for handover of the plot, and she submitted an application under her own signature on Sept 12 seeking transfer. The court viewed this submission as evidence of criminal intent.
The judge said that on Sept 12, Hasina applied for registration of the lease deed and submitted another affidavit -- also unsworn -- on a Tk 300 non-judicial stamp.
While it stated that she held no plot in her own name, it again concealed information regarding land allocated to her husband and family. This affidavit too was legally invalid, yet RAJUK proceeded with the decision to execute the lease deed, and the agreement between RAJUK and Hasina was registered at the Kaliganj Sub-Registry Office the same day.
Judge Abdullah remarked that Hasina later submitted a formal application requesting the handover of the plot.
“She has greed for wealth. Otherwise, she could have rejected the allotment and said ‘I do not need the plot’. Instead, she applied to receive it.”
Plot 9 was subsequently handed over to her. The judge said RAJUK and the Ministry of Housing and Public Works had acted unlawfully, and that Hasina had been involved in wrongdoing and had committed fraud.
“If she had not received it, some honest person might have.”
The judge observed that she received her plot on Aug 3 and, “regrettably”, on Aug 31 recommended a plot for her son, Joy.
On Sept 11, she recommended a plot for her daughter Putul, who also received one. She then sought plots for her sister and her sister’s children. The judge said these further issues were not elaborated upon as they were outside the scope of the case.
The court then delivered the three verdicts consecutively. At 11:56am, the judge stepped down from the bench.
Investigators submitted chargesheets last March against 12 people in the case concerning Hasina’s plot, 17 in Joy’s case and 18 in Putul’s case. As many defendants were accused in multiple cases, the actual number of individuals was 23.
On Jul 31, charges were framed in all three cases. After arguments concluded on Nov 23, the verdicts were announced on Thursday, four months later.
On Nov 17, Hasina was sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal for committing crimes against humanity in the attempt to suppress last year’s July Uprising.
She has now been given jail sentences in corruption cases, becoming Bangladesh’s second former head of state or government to be convicted for corruption. Previously, BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia was sentenced in the Zia Orphanage Trust and Zia Charitable Trust cases, before later being acquitted on appeal following a shift in political circumstances.
Before that, former military ruler HM Ershad faced more than a dozen corruption cases after his fall from power and was convicted in multiple cases, including the Janata Tower case.
