A Dhaka court has sentenced Labour MP Tulip Siddiq to two years’ imprisonment and a Tk100,000 (£620) fine in a corruption case heard in her absence. The same verdict imposed five years on former prime minister Sheikh Hasina and seven years on Siddiq’s mother, Sheikh Rehana, over the alleged improper allocation of a government plot on the outskirts of the capital. The Financial Times, Reuters and AP all reported that Judge Rabiul Alam delivered the rulings and ordered the land’s cancellation, with an additional six months’ jail for non‑payment of the fine.
Siddiq, the MP for Hampstead and Highgate, called the process “flawed and farcical” and said the outcome of a “kangaroo court” should be treated with contempt. A Labour Party spokesperson said she had not been given access to a fair legal process or informed of the full details of the charges. These statements were carried by Reuters and other outlets.
Prosecutors argued in court filings that Siddiq acted as a Bangladeshi citizen and used influence over her aunt to secure a plot for family members. Siddiq’s lawyers dispute she is a Bangladeshi citizen and say she never received a summons, charge sheet or formal notice; they also argue documents cited by the authorities are forged. The Guardian has reviewed the competing assertions around nationality and notice.
The case sits within a broader slate of proceedings brought since Sheikh Hasina’s removal in 2024. In November 2025, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal convicted Hasina in absentia of crimes against humanity linked to the 2024 protest crackdown and imposed a death sentence-decisions that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said failed to meet basic fair‑trial standards.
Senior British lawyers, including former justice secretary Robert Buckland KC, former attorney general Dominic Grieve KC, and Cherie Blair KC, have written to Bangladesh’s High Commissioner in London raising due‑process concerns about Siddiq’s proceedings, citing lack of meaningful legal representation and intimidation of counsel. Their intervention was first reported by the Guardian.
Extradition to Bangladesh would not be automatic. The UK has no bilateral extradition treaty with Bangladesh, but Bangladesh is designated a Category 2 Type B territory under the Extradition Act 2003. That requires a requesting state to present prima facie evidence, with cases handled under Part 2 of the Act. This status is confirmed by Home Office guidance and the 2003 Designation Order.
If Dhaka were to lodge a request, it would be received by the UK Central Authority at the Home Office and heard at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. In an accusation case, the judge must determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer (section 84), then consider bars including political motivation (section 81) and human‑rights compatibility (section 87). Only if those tests are met is the case sent to the Secretary of State for a final decision.
Further statutory safeguards would also be relevant. Where a risk of capital punishment exists, the Secretary of State must refuse extradition absent adequate written assurances that a death sentence will not be imposed or carried out (section 94). Although Siddiq’s case does not involve capital charges, this bar has practical importance for requests arising from Bangladesh’s current caseload.
A Red Notice alone would not result in immediate arrest in the UK. Interpol states that a Red Notice is not an arrest warrant, and the UK’s Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 allows warrant‑less provisional arrest only for a short list of specified Category 2 countries-Australia, Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States. Bangladesh is not on that list.
Politically, the conviction does not in itself trigger a recall petition in the UK. Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, the first recall condition applies only to custodial convictions in UK courts; foreign convictions do not qualify. The Electoral Commission’s guidance and the Act’s explanatory notes confirm this. Siddiq remains a Labour MP and, as reported by the Financial Times, retains the party whip.
In January 2025, after referring herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister; Sir Laurie Magnus said he found no breach of the Ministerial Code and no evidence of financial impropriety, while warning she should have been more alert to reputational risk. Those findings and the resignation were set out in contemporaneous correspondence and reporting.
For UK policymakers and compliance teams, the near‑term issues are procedural rather than diplomatic. Any Bangladeshi request would have to overcome the prima facie evidence test, political‑motivation bar and human‑rights scrutiny before reaching ministerial decision. If the Secretary of State ultimately ordered extradition, removal would normally occur within 28 days unless appealed, according to Home Office guidance.