The foundation of any debate surrounding extradition is inherently legal. It is a complex web of bilateral treaties, due process, human rights benchmarks, and the inherent limits of cross-border judicial cooperation. Yet, extradition disputes rarely remain confined to the courtroom. They inevitably spill over into the corridors of diplomacy, entangling the domestic politics of multiple nations and, most crucially, forcing governments to reveal their true hand: Whether they seek “accountability” or “retribution.”
The escalating situation surrounding Tulip Siddiq stands exactly at this crossroads. It does not merely question the legal feasibility of an extradition from the UK; it interrogates the very nature of UK-Bangladesh relations, the internal dynamics of Britain’s ruling Labour Party, and the future trajectory of the newly elected government in Dhaka after years of political upheaval.
A strategic signal
It is highly significant that this issue gained momentum even before the new government in Bangladesh formally took its oath. Humayun Kabir, a long-standing and close aide to Bangladesh’s prime minister-elect, recently remarked that justice should not be "hindered by territorial barriers." Many view this as a clear signal of the BNP-led government's intent regarding Tulip Siddiq. When those closest to the seat of power speak with such precision, their words demand careful scrutiny.
Tulip Siddiq’s case has already captured the international spotlight -- not only because she served as a junior minister under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, but because she is the niece of the ousted Bangladeshi leader, Sheikh Hasina.
Few politicians find themselves at the centre of such a convoluted equation. Tulip Siddiq currently faces trials on two fronts: The personal toll of losing her ministerial portfolio and the damage to her political career, alongside the shadow of corruption allegations in another jurisdiction. She is at once the granddaughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman -- Bangladesh’s founding leader -- and an elected MP and former minister in a major Western democracy who rose through her own strategy from a grassroots local councillor. Consequently, any proposal to extradite an individual from the UK to a country with a contested human rights and judicial record becomes, by definition, a diplomatic flashpoint.
Law above all: The limits of extradition
The legal reality presents a very narrow path forward. Bangladesh and the United Kingdom do not share a formal extradition treaty. Furthermore, the extradition of a sitting Member of Parliament faces formidable statutory, human rights, and political hurdles. While UK law allows for "Special Extradition Arrangements" in the absence of a treaty, such measures are exceedingly rare and subject to intense judicial review and Cabinet approval. In British history, there is no precedent for extraditing a Member of Parliament.
In practical terms, the likelihood of Tulip’s extradition remains slim, making Dhaka’s pressure more a matter of diplomacy than a purely judicial pursuit. However, this legal stalemate is nothing new to Bangladeshi politics.
Tarique Rahman is himself intimately familiar with the British legal and political landscape. Having lived in the UK for nearly two decades, he built deep roots within the British-Bangladeshi community and closely observed the inner workings of Parliament and the courts. His return to power is not just a personal or partisan victory but marks the rise of a leader with extensive experience in navigating Western legal norms and their limitations.
During his time in London, Rahman was not only accused but convicted in absentia in several criminal cases filed during the Hasina administration and the preceding military-backed government. Using these convictions, the Hasina government repeatedly demanded his return, with Hasina herself frequently declaring her intent to see him behind bars in Bangladesh. Those formal requests to the UK never bore fruit.
Rahman and the BNP consistently challenged the legitimacy of those proceedings, arguing they were politically motivated and fell short of international legal standards. Citing the lack of a treaty and concerns over judicial independence and human rights, British authorities declined to act -- allowing Rahman to remain in the UK until the political landscape in Bangladesh shifted.
Diplomacy and reciprocity
This history now shapes Dhaka’s current posture. A key element in this equation is the ongoing cooperation regarding migration and repatriation. In recent years, the UK has pressured partner nations to take back illegal migrants -- an agreement the Hasina government rushed through with particular zeal.
Authorities in Dhaka may now frame this cooperation as a "responsible partnership." The subtle argument being: If Bangladesh is respectful of the UK’s administrative needs, the UK should show reciprocity by respecting Bangladesh’s judicial processes regarding high-level financial crimes. Even if extradition remains legally out of reach, the issue could strain bilateral ties, particularly if the Starmer government finds itself squeezed between domestic critics and a powerful new adversary in Dhaka.
The UK political dimension
Within Britain, the "Tulip issue" has exacerbated tensions within the Labour Party. While Prime Minister Starmer has long defended his close ally, describing the allegations as politically motivated, the internal party dynamics are shifting. Figures like Angela Rayner, known for her strict stance on party discipline, may not be willing to carry this political baggage indefinitely -- especially following Tulip’s resignation from the Treasury in January 2025.
The irony of history
Ultimately, the most significant decisions lie with Bangladesh. There is a profound historical irony at play here. For years, the Hasina government pursued Tarique Rahman’s extradition with relentless obsession. Bringing him back to Dhaka was a cornerstone of their political identity. Today, the roles are completely reversed. Tarique Rahman is directing the nation from Dhaka, while Sheikh Hasina is in exile in India. Now, it is Tulip Siddiq who finds herself in the crosshairs.
While the outgoing interim government led by Muhammad Yunus initiated the preliminary steps and charges against Tulip -- often echoing the demands of allies like NCP and Jamaat-e-Islami -- an elected government has different priorities. Tarique Rahman’s challenge is no longer just about ensuring accountability, but about rebuilding a political environment scarred by sanctions, crackdowns, and "mob justice."
Among the four British-Bangladeshi MPs, Tulip was widely regarded as the most tactically astute and politically formidable. By age 41, she had secured four consecutive terms in a seat that was never a "safe" bet for Labour. Yet, it is a staggering tragedy that a politician who began her ministerial career overseeing corruption investigations was ultimately forced to resign under the shadow of similar allegations.
On a personal note, I recall being subjected to a vicious campaign by the "CP-Gang" -- an online propaganda group -- for the "crime" of publishing an objective report on Tulip Siddiq during the Awami League's tenure. Despite that bitter experience, I firmly believe that Tulip Siddiq deserves the full right to a fair and neutral trial.
I think that Tarique Rahman, through his long years of political career, has mastered the art of the long game. He knows exactly which lever to pull and when. In politics, it seems, everything eventually comes full circle -- just in a different form, at a different time.
Munzer Ahmed Chowdhury is a journalist and political analyst. Views expressed are the writer’s own.
