A court in Bangladesh has taken a significant step by issuing an Interpol Red Notice for Tulip Siddiq, the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate, following her conviction on corruption charges.
Ms Siddiq, a former UK anti-corruption minister, was sentenced to four years in prison by a Dhaka court for her involvement in a corruption case.
In a related development, her aunt, Sheikh Hasina, was sentenced to ten years in prison for allegations tied to a government development project near the capital.
Sheikh Hasina’s rule ended abruptly in 2024 amid a student-led uprising, ending her 15-year tenure in office. Since August 2024, she has been living in exile in India, adding a layer of political complexity to the case.
The Interpol Red Notice was issued by Dhaka Metropolitan Senior Special Judge Mohammed Sabbir Faiz after a thorough petition from the country’s anti-corruption commission. Assistant Director A.K.M. Mortuza Ali Sagar emphasised the urgency of seeking a Red Notice from Interpol to aid in Ms Siddiq’s arrest.
An Interpol Red Notice is a request to law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition or similar legal proceedings. Recognising this helps the UK public understand the notice’s significance and potential influence on international cooperation.
This situation is expected to trigger significant political reactions in the United Kingdom, where Ms Siddiq is an active MP. The next steps, including potential extradition or UK responses to the Red Notice, remain uncertain, but further clarification from UK officials or Ms Siddiq’s representatives is anticipated soon as the case unfolds.
Assistant Director A.K.M. Mortuza Ali Sagar requested that a Red Notice be sought via Interpol to facilitate Ms Siddiq’s arrest.
An Interpol Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender or similar legal action. It is not itself an international arrest warrant.
The development is likely to generate significant political reactions within the United Kingdom, especially given Ms Siddiq’s role as a sitting MP. The UK government’s possible responses, including diplomatic or legal actions, are important for understanding the wider political consequences of this case.
It remains uncertain what legal steps may follow, including whether extradition proceedings will be pursued or how UK authorities might respond to the Red Notice request, emphasising the need to stay informed about future updates.
Siddiq said in a statement: “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.”
Siddiq added: “I feel like I am in some sort of Kafka-esqe nightmare where I am carrying on doing my day job but on the other hand, I am apparently being convicted in Bangladesh.”
Cabinet minister Darren Jones told Sky News: “She’s tried to engage, as I understand, with this process in Bangladesh, unsuccessfully and so she’s concluded it’s a kind of more a political operation than a legal one.
“She was obviously not part of that trial or court process in Bangladesh and they concluded, innocence or otherwise, without her.”
A Labour 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.”
