Labour MP and former minister Tulip Siddiq has been sentenced to two years in prison in Bangladesh after a court found her guilty in absentia of corruption, ruling that she had “manipulated and influenced” her aunt, former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, to obtain land for members of her family.
The Special Judge’s Court in Dhaka concluded that Siddiq, a former Labour minister, had used her position in Britain to sway Hasina, who was herself ousted during mass unrest in 2024 and last month received the death penalty for crimes against humanity.
Prosecutors alleged that Siddiq secured three plots on the outskirts of Dhaka for her mother, Sheikh Rehana Siddiq, her sister, Azmina Siddiq Ruponti, and her brother, Radwan Mujib Siddiq Bobby.
Siddiq, who serves as MP for Hampstead and Highgate and denies all wrongdoing, remains in London and is not expected to serve the sentence.
In addition to the jail term, the court imposed a fine of 100,000 taka, around £620, with a further six months’ imprisonment if she fails to pay.
Siddiq, who stepped down in January from her ministerial role overseeing financial services and anti-corruption policy after questions arose about her financial links to Hasina, responded furiously, branding the process a “kangaroo court”. In a statement she said: “This whole process has been flawed and farcical from the beginning to the end. The outcome of this kangaroo court is as predictable as it is unjustified.
“I hope this so called ‘verdict’ will be treated with the contempt it deserves. My focus has always been my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate and I refuse to be distracted by the dirty politics of Bangladesh.”
The Government has indicated that it accepts Siddiq’s insistence on her innocence. Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, told Sky: “Tulip has made it very clear that she denies any wrongdoing whatsoever.
“She’s tried to engage, as I understand, with this progress in Bangladesh unsuccessfully and she’s concluded it was more of a political operation than a legal one.”
He added: “Tulip will have to comment more on the detail but my understanding is she refutes any accusations.” When asked if the Government supported her, Mr Jones nodded.
Judge Muhammad Rabiul Alam said the prosecution had proved “beyond doubt that Ms Tulip Siddiq as British MP used her influence” over Hasina. The court was told that Siddiq acted after learning that Hasina had secured properties for herself and her children. Investigators from Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission, led by deputy director Muhammad Salahuddin, alleged that Hasina concealed ownership of properties in Dhaka and that Siddiq persuaded her aunt to arrange plots for Siddiq’s immediate family.
The ACC has launched several inquiries into Siddiq, linking them to alleged corruption within Hasina’s administration. She has yet to attend any hearings, and a warrant for her arrest was issued in April. In January, the commission lodged six cases naming Hasina, with Siddiq listed as an abetter in three of them.
During earlier proceedings, Siddiq accused Bangladeshi authorities of circulating “fake” passport and identity documents to undermine her. Papers reported by The Telegraph appeared to show she held Bangladeshi identification, contradicting her previous explanations, but she insisted that the documents had been falsified to implicate her.
Two further corruption trials involving Siddiq and other relatives are still under way, with verdicts expected early in January.
A Labour Party spokesman said: “The Labour Party and all our elected representatives take the rule of law incredibly seriously and will always fulfil our legal responsibilities.
“As has been reported, highly regarded senior legal professionals have highlighted that Tulip Siddiq has not had access to a fair legal process in this case and has never been informed of the details of the charges against her. This is despite repeated requests made to the Bangladeshi authorities through her legal team.
“Anyone facing any charge should always be afforded the right to make legal representations when allegations are made against them. Given that has not happened in this case, we cannot recognise this judgment.”
