I was targeted: Sheikh Hasina’s daughter breaks silence on WHO row

Nearly a year after being sidelined, former WHO South-East Asia Regional Director Saima Wazed, daughter of former Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina, has broken her silence. She says the World Health Organisation closed its investigation into allegations concerning her travel to China in August 2026 and found them “unsubstantiated”. She was informed of the finding in early August, she says, and the reports were sent to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. She has received no further communication since.

Wazed had taken charge in February 2024 for a five-year term, becoming the first person from Bangladesh and the second woman to hold the post. She was later placed on leave amid allegations of fraud, questions over academic credentials, and land dealings. In December 2025, her leave was converted from paid to unpaid — a decision she calls retaliatory and linked to her formal complaint over the leak of confidential documents from the Director-General’s office.

Her appointment had drawn scrutiny because of her family background. Hasina was in office when Wazed was nominated. Wazed rejects the suggestion that her family ties should have any bearing on her professional appointment, saying WHO’s vetting procedures were followed.

The controversy unfolded after Hasina’s removal from power in 2024. Wazed says the investigation was initiated at the request of Bangladesh’s interim government. WHO has not publicly confirmed her account that all investigations were closed with no findings against her.

Excerpts from the interview:

The Pioneer: What specific evidence does the WHO have concerning the allegations related to fraud, academic credentials, and land dealings involving you? What is your response to these allegations?

Saima Wazed: WHO launched an investigation at the behest of the interim regime in Bangladesh in September 2025. I was placed on leave with pay from September, which was to continue until January. In December, the leave was converted to leave without pay. This was done without any substantial allegation or evidence that necessitated such a change, without just cause, and in violation of existing WHO rules and procedures.

The decision to place me on leave without pay was retaliatory in nature. Ten days before the change in my leave status, I had submitted an official request seeking an investigation into the leak of a confidential letter and other information from the Office of the Director-General. This occurred while the investigation was ongoing and while I was fully participating in it during my leave with pay, which I had been informed would continue until January 2026.

The Pioneer: Why were you placed on unpaid leave for nearly a year? Was the WHO considering formal disciplinary action or your removal from the position before you submitted your resignation?

Saima Wazed: All investigations were closed in August 2026. Allegations of fraud regarding travel to China were found to be unsubstantiated, and I was duly informed of this in early August 2026. The reports were sent to Dr Tedros for his final decision on the matter. No further information has been forthcoming from WHO since.

The Pioneer: Does your resignation raise broader concerns within the WHO about the vetting, appointment, and accountability mechanisms for senior officials, particularly in cases involving individuals with close political or family ties to senior political figures, including former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina?

Saima Wazed: WHO has a sufficient vetting process for the nomination and accountability of candidates put forward by member states. All such procedures were followed in my case. Familial relationships are not a fair or valid category for questioning a nomination. Most nominees for such positions are political in nature; many candidates are former politicians or are politically affiliated with the regime in power at the time of nomination.

To deny a candidate the right to be selected on the grounds of family background could be interpreted as a violation of an individual’s professional human rights and freedom to choose their professional path. It would be equivalent to saying that the son or daughter of a farmer cannot one day become a surgeon or head a department at a medical institute.