Why Does Dr. Muhammad Yunus Don’t Trust Bangladesh Judiciary?

-Aminul Hoque

On August 8, 2024, Dr. Muhammad Yunus assumed office as the Chief Adviser of Bangladesh’s interim government. Remarkably, just a day earlier, the court overturned a six-month prison sentence and a fine of 5,000 Taka imposed on him under labor laws. Within days of his appointment, judicial decisions seemed to cascade in his favor. On August 12, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) case against him was dismissed. This was followed by the withdrawal of a ruling requiring his organization, Grameen Kalyan, to pay 666 crore Taka in taxes, and the cancellation of five labor court cases lodged against him.

The cases against Dr. Yunus, spanning labor law violations, tax evasion, and corruption, were not new. They had been ongoing for years, adhering to due legal processes. Yet, the timing and speed with which these cases were dismissed after his rise to power have raised serious questions about the independence of the judiciary and Dr. Yunus’s confidence in legal proceedings.

Dr. Yunus has long claimed that the cases against him were politically motivated and aimed at harassment. In an interview with New Age journalist Nurul Kabir, he argued that these cases would eventually have been dismissed, regardless of his position in government. If this assertion holds true, why did he opt for expedited dismissals rather than allowing the cases to conclude through the usual judicial process?

A Timeline of Legal Proceedings

To assess Dr. Yunus’s claims of harassment, it is instructive to examine the timeline of these cases. The labor court case, which led to his initial sentencing, was filed on September 9, 2021. Although labor laws mandate that such cases be resolved within two years, multiple appeals from Dr. Yunus delayed the proceedings. A verdict was finally delivered on January 1, 2024, after more than three years of litigation.

The tax case against Grameen Kalyan dates back to October 2, 2017, when the National Board of Revenue (NBR) identified tax evasion amounting to 666 crore Taka over a five-year period. Dr. Yunus’s team filed no fewer than four writ petitions and eight reference cases to delay payment. After over seven years of legal wrangling, the High Court upheld the NBR’s ruling on August 4, 2024.

Dr. Yunus’s personal tax case began on March 5, 2015, with allegations of income tax evasion. The proceedings spanned more than eight years, culminating in a ruling on July 23, 2023. Dr. Yunus was found guilty of evading taxes and was required to pay 12.47 crore Taka.

Similarly, the ACC’s case against Dr. Yunus, initiated in 2023 after a year-long investigation, resulted in charges of financial mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. Yet, despite the detailed allegations, this case, too, was dismissed in record time shortly after he assumed office.

Dr. Yunus’ ACC Scandal, A High-Stakes Embezzlement Showdown: The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) case against Dr. Yunus was deeply intertwined with his leadership of Grameen Telecom. Grameen Telecom owns 34.2% of Grameenphone, Bangladesh’s largest telecom operator. Under the 2006 Labor Act, workers are entitled to 5% of a company’s profits. However, Grameen Telecom claimed non-profit status to evade this obligation, prompting over 100 lawsuits from workers beginning in 2017.

The grievances escalated when 99 employees were terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Following High Court orders, Grameen Telecom reinstated the workers but initially resisted paying profit shares despite the court order. Frustrated by non-compliance, employees filed a case on July 7, 2022, seeking to dissolve Grameen Telecom. Facing the possibility of losing control over the company, Dr. Yunus pursued an out-of-court settlement. This settlement included conditional retirement of the employees and withdrawal of all pending cases against the organization.

Further complicating matters, 26 crore Taka was transferred from the designated profit-sharing account to a separate account controlled by three union leaders and two lawyers, who collectively received 25 crore Taka. These transactions raised serious questions about financial governance and became the focus of the ACC’s investigation. The ACC alleged that the funds, instead of being distributed transparently to the workers, were misappropriated under Dr. Yunus’s direct supervision.

On May 30, 2023, the ACC filed a case alleging financial mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. A detailed charge sheet was submitted on January 29, 2024, outlining specific instances of irregularities. Despite Dr. Yunus’s legal team filing several appeals to halt proceedings, the High Court ruled on June 2, 2024, that the case contained sufficient grounds to proceed. However, the case was dismissed on August 12, 2024, shortly after Dr. Yunus assumed office as Chief Adviser. This abrupt dismissal, along with the lack of detailed reasoning provided by the court, has drawn widespread criticism and fueled allegations of judicial interference.

Judicial Independence Under Scrutiny

The rapid dismissal of these cases has cast a shadow over the judiciary’s independence. Dr. Yunus’s tenure has been marked by significant changes in the legal system, including the resignation of the Chief Justice and several appellate judges, the appointment of a politically aligned Attorney General, and the strategic placement of favorable judges in key courts.

Despite these measures, the question persists: why did Dr. Yunus avoid addressing these cases through regular judicial channels? If the charges were truly baseless, why not trust the judiciary to deliver justice?

A Question for History

Dr. Yunus’s actions raise broader concerns about the erosion of judicial independence and the precedent this sets for governance. While the details of these cases may fade over time, their implications will linger as a cautionary tale of power, accountability, and the rule of law.

Time, as always, will reveal the truth. But for now, the question remains: why does Dr. Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate and global icon, lack faith in the very judicial system he claims to respect?