Bangladesh is currently experiencing a profound political crisis, marked by escalating violence and widespread civil unrest. The situation reached a critical point on Sunday 4th August 2024, when nearly 100 individuals lost their lives in a brutal wave of violence. This surge in unrest culminated in Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fleeing the country, mere hours before protestors stormed her official residence. The demonstrators, part of a coordinated march, were determined to force Hasina to resign, a demand she ultimately complied with as the military announced her resignation shortly after her departure.
The resignation of Sheikh Hasina and the ruling Awami League has thrown Bangladesh into a state of political volatility and deep uncertainty. In the immediate aftermath, the national parliament was dissolved, and an interim government, under the leadership of the Chief of Army Staff, was established. This interim administration, to be led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus and comprised of representatives from various political factions, now faces the daunting task of stabilising a country on the brink. However, there are growing concerns about the government's ability to provide stability or to uphold the rights of political dissidents, which has led to fears of continued unrest and further violence. Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads, awaiting new elections that will determine its political future, though there is no assurance that these elections will bring the much-needed stability to the region.
The Broader Context: Political Violence and Asylum in the UK
Bangladesh has a long history of political violence, with numerous instances of political persecution driving many of its citizens to seek asylum abroad. The UK has been a common destination for such asylum seekers, particularly those fleeing persecution under the Awami League's governance. The recent political upheaval in Bangladesh raises significant questions about the future of these asylum claims and the broader implications for immigration practitioners in the UK.
Asylum claims based on political persecution are inherently complex, requiring a careful assessment of an applicant's risk upon returning to their home country. The recent events in Bangladesh add a layer of complexity to these cases, as the situation on the ground is fluid and unpredictable. The dissolution of parliament, the establishment of an interim government and the ongoing violence create an environment in which the risk to returning asylum seekers is difficult to assess with certainty.
Judicial Responses: Divergent Approaches in the UK Tribunal
In the days following the political crisis in Bangladesh, two cases before the UK's First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) have highlighted the challenges faced by judges in adjudicating asylum claims under such volatile circumstances. Both cases involved applications to adjourn substantive hearings due to the uncertainty surrounding the situation in Bangladesh. However, the judicial responses to these applications have been markedly different, reflecting a lack of consistency in the approach to Bangladeshi political asylum claims.
The First Approach: Proceeding Despite Uncertainty
On 7th August 2024, an Immigration Judge at the FTT decided to proceed with a substantive appeal hearing, despite the ongoing unrest in Bangladesh. The judge argued that unless there was a "durable and significant" change in the country — significant enough to warrant an updated Country Policy and Information Note (CPIN) from the Home Office — the hearing should go ahead as planned. This approach suggests that the current evidence and country information available to the Tribunal should be sufficient to make a decision, even in the face of recent developments.
The judge further indicated that if the situation in Bangladesh were to change significantly in the future, an appellant would have the opportunity to submit further evidence in a new application if their appeal were dismissed. This stance places the burden on the appellant to demonstrate that any changes in the political landscape are substantial and long-lasting, potentially creating a challenging situation for asylum seekers who are already navigating a complex legal process.
The Second Approach: Acknowledging the Need for Caution
In contrast, on 8th August 2024, another Immigration Judge at the FTT took a different approach, granting an adjournment due to the significant uncertainty surrounding the situation in Bangladesh. This judge recognised that the interim government's ability to stabilise the country remained unproven, and that proceeding with a hearing without a clear understanding of the implications for Bangladeshi nationals would be premature. The decision to adjourn the hearing was based on the principle of fairness, ensuring that both the appellant and respondent have adequate time to gather information and adjust their cases in light of the evolving situation.
This more cautious approach is rooted in the authority of Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00418 (IAC), which emphasises that the refusal of an adjournment can be legally erroneous if it deprives a party of their right to a fair hearing. The paramount consideration in such cases, particularly those involving protection claims, is ensuring that the appellant's right to a fair hearing is upheld, even if this necessitates a delay in proceedings.
The judge who granted the adjournment underscored the importance of obtaining a clearer picture of the political situation in Bangladesh before moving forward with asylum hearings. Although the interim government is expected to take power soon and the military has temporarily quelled some of the violence, there is no guarantee that this will lead to long-term stability. By granting the adjournment, the judge allowed time for the situation in Bangladesh to evolve, enabling both parties to present a more informed case that takes into account any new developments.
The Need for Consistent Judicial Guidance
The divergent approaches taken by the FTT in these cases highlight the urgent need for consistent judicial guidance on how to handle asylum claims from Bangladeshi nationals in the current context. Without clear and consistent guidelines, both asylum seekers and their legal representatives are left in a state of uncertainty, unsure of how their cases will be handled by the courts.
Moreover, the Home Office's role in providing updated guidance is crucial. Until the Home Office issues a new CPIN or other objective evidence that reflects the current situation in Bangladesh, judges may continue to adopt differing approaches, further complicating the legal landscape for Bangladeshi asylum seekers in the UK.
Conclusion
As the situation in Bangladesh continues to unfold, the fate of many Bangladeshi asylum seekers in the UK remains uncertain. The inconsistent judicial approaches observed thus far underscore the complexities involved in adjudicating asylum claims under rapidly changing political circumstances. For now, Bangladeshi political asylum seekers and their representatives must navigate this unpredictable landscape, awaiting clearer guidance from both the judiciary and the Home Office.
Until then, the future of Bangladeshi nationals seeking asylum in the UK hangs in the balance, with no definitive answers about what lies ahead for them — whether in the UK or if they are forced to return to a Bangladesh that is still grappling with political instability.