Image description
Sheikh Hasina

The High Court on Sunday directed the interim government authorities to submit a detailed report within 30 days on the costs incurred for assets, security, benefits, and privileges provided to deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her family members over the last 15 years.

The bench of Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice Muhammad Mahbub Ul Islam issued the order in response to a writ petition filed by lawyer Mohammad Maniruzzaman.


He challenged the legal basis of the benefits granted to Sheikh Hasina, her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy, her daughter Saima Wazed Putul, her sister Sheikh Rehana, Rehana’s son Radwan Mujib Siddiq Bobby, her daughters Tulip Siddiq and Azmina Siddiq Rupanti, and Tulip’s husband Christian Percy.

These benefits were granted under the Father of the Nation Family Members’ Security Act, 2009, and the Special Security Force Act, 2021.

The court also sought an explanation from the interim government as to why they should not be directed to recover the assets, benefits, and costs associated with the lifetime security provided to Hasina and her family members.

Appearing for the petitioner, lawyer Chowdhury Ishrak Ahmed Siddiq argued that the laws enacted by the Awami League government were discriminatory, as they conferred special benefits and privileges on specific individuals — namely, the daughters and grandchildren of the country’s founding president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and their spouses.

Siddiq contended that these benefits exceed those available to ordinary citizens, creating a separate class without a valid legal basis.

He challenged the constitutionality of these laws, asserting that they violate the principles of equality before the law.

Siddiq argued that the court’s inquiry into the financial implications of these benefits and privileges was a step towards addressing the alleged legal inconsistencies.

On August 29, the advisory council of the interim government decided to repeal the law that provided additional security to the family members of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, citing it as a ‘discriminatory policy’.