Summary of Issues Surrounding Prof. Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank and the Bangladesh Government

Click here to download a PDF of the summary

In August 2024, the 14 year long persecution of Professor Yunus by his own government came to a dramatic ending. After weeks of bloodshed and crisis, on August 5 Sheikh Hasina resigned as Prime Minister and fled the country. The students who led the uprising and revolution asked Professor Yunus to lead the new interim government. He was initially reluctant but ultimately felt he could not say no to the students who had sacrificed so much. He was inaugurated as the Chief Adviser, or Acting Prime Minister, of the country on August 8. Since then, he has been trying to help the country grieve, unify, and rebuild. In the meantime, the two frivolous cases against him have been dismissed. What appears below can serve as a historical record of the persecution he endured and the demands for justice made by him and on his behalf between late 2010 and the middle of 2024. We expect to continue posting on the progress of his administration on the Project Yunus blog.

Background

For more than a decade, baseless stories have circulated about Professor Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank who jointly received the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for their work on fighting poverty through microfinance and social business. In 2022, the line of attack against Yunus was revived and represents a threat to justice and human rights in Bangladesh and to Professor Yunus’ personal safety.

Among many other lines of attack, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh has repeatedly falsely alleged that Yunus blocked the World Bank’s approval of a loan to support the building of the Padma Bridge by lobbying U.S. officials, including when that bridge was inaugurated in 2022. She supported the creation of a commission to investigate this matter, to identify so-called “enemies of the nation,” and to bring them to justice. She also has made a series of statements about Yunus that may incite others to attack him.

For example, as reported here, the Prime Minister said this in May: “[Yunus] blocked the funds for Padma bridge merely for the post of MD [of Grameen Bank]. He should be plunged into the Padma River twice. He should be just plunged in a bit and pulled out so he doesn’t die, and then pulled up onto the bridge. That perhaps will teach him a lesson.” These statements and actions represent a threat and a state-sponsored campaign against a private citizen who happens to be one of the great moral leaders of our time.

The Yunus Centre has responded to these and some other recent allegations here. Independent British journalist David Bergman recently published an analysis of the evidence that the reason the World Bank funding offer actually was withdrawn was due to corruption within the Bangladesh government.

The international press and notable public figures are beginning to express outrage about this latest turn of events. This important opinion piece by an editorial writer at the Deseret News spurred journalist Nicholas Kristof and former U.S. presidential candidate Marianne Williamson to weigh in on the matter to their combined 4.6 million followers on Twitter.

The government has recently moved on from its Padma Bridge line of attack, perhaps because it was so far-fetched and obviously baseless, and focused on “investigating” corruption related to a legal matter between Grameen Telecom, a nonprofit organization that Yunus chairs on a voluntary, non-compensated basis, and some of the organization’s former employees. A detailed analysis of this issue has been published by David Bergman and can be accessed here. The investigation into the Padma Bridge matter was later dropped by the government after a deadline set for late August 2022 to issue a final report was missed.

On September 22, 2022, the government’s Anti-Corruption Commission sent a formal notice to the Chairman of Grameen Telecom to supply an impossible amount of information about its operations, history, and people — and then extended that request to 43 other organizations Prof. Yunus has been involved in over time (including 2 based outside the borders of Bangladesh). Incredibly, the due date was September 29, 2022 — just seven calendar days after the original request was made. Read more about that here — an English translation of the letter requesting the information is included.

Grameen Telecom provided the requested information by the due date, and David Bergman recently reflected on this absurd “fishing expedition” in the context of the larger issue of human rights abuses in Bangladesh. He rightly points out that Grameen Telecom, a nonprofit organization, should be lauded as the most prolific domestic philanthropic organization in Bangladesh rather than as somehow being guilty of “money laundering.” (For more on the human rights situation in the country, read this short summary by Amnesty International.)

As further evidence that the international community was starting to wake up to this crisis, the Economist wrote a powerful article in October 2022 that put the persecution of Professor Yunus in the context of the wider human rights issues in Bangladesh. And then the Financial Times published its own hard-hitting analysis when one of its journalists was given a rare visa to report from inside Bangladesh (most foreign reporters have their visa requests refused these days).

On March 7, 2023, 40 global leaders wrote to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina asking her to stop harassing and persecuting Dr. Yunus and had their letter published as a full-page ad in the Washington Post. This call led to thousands of supportive messages on social media. A related press release and a collage of the signers circulated widely. In the immediate aftermath of the release of the open letter, the government was mostly silent except for an incoherent statement by the Foreign Minister about the letter that included, “It does not matter much. It’s unrealistic and not objective.”

The global community is increasingly calling on Hasina to cease her persecution of Professor Yunus and the people of Bangladesh. For example, an influential article in a popular Indian magazine that often reflects the views of the Indian government recommended that “Sheikh Hasina should simply forget her interest in Muhammed Yunus. The fact that she has been pursuing him for so many years, in fact, undermines her…” The UN human rights chief called on the PM to suspend the Digital Security Act which has been the basis of much recent persecution.

On April 10, on national television, the PM attacked the United States, Prothom Alo, a respected Bangladeshi newspaper, and Professor Yunus — something that the Project Yunus campaign has responded to. In the meantime, the Guardian wrote about the deepening crisis related to freedom of the press spawned by the PM’s attacks on Prothom Alo.

Since then, government surveillance of Professor Yunus when he is in Bangladesh (where he continues to reside with his family) has increased to the point where it is a major distraction to him and those close to him. Furthermore, in late April he received notification in the form of a “demand notice” that the government was alleging, falsely, that he had unpaid taxes dating back to the early 1990s. Working through the Eid holidays, he completed his response to the government proving that the allegations were untrue. However, Professor Yunus’ accomplishments, integrity and creativity continue to be recognized by the people of Bangladesh and by governments, private sector leaders, and citizens worldwide.

On May 2, 2023, the government’s so-called “Anti-Corruption Commission” — which has been requesting reams of documentation about Grameen Telecom for months — finally summoned Professor Yunus to appear before it on May 11. Nearly a month after that interview, the Commission charged Professor Yunus and 7 other Grameen Telecom board members with corrupt acts related to a settlement this nonprofit organization successfully reached with the union representing scores of its ex-employees. In fact, the “First Investigation Report” (FIR) found no evidence that any of the funds involved in the settlement were taken by Professor Yunus or the other directors. Rather, it notes two minor clerical issues (that are easily explained) as falsely suggesting or implying that there was some malfeasance.

One of those errors related to a calculation mistake that was discovered late in the process that actually led to an overpayment to the employees’ union lawyers. (Grameen Telecom decided it was better to pay the extra 16 million taka, equal to US$147,609, than to spend additional weeks revising the settlement documentation to correct the computational error and adjust all the figures influenced by it.) The other issue was that the settlement agreement was signed at a time when one of the union bank accounts designated for receiving a payment had not yet been opened. The section of the agreement for specifying the account number was intentionally left blank and the account number was later entered by hand once it was received from the bank.

In another case, the High Court denied Professor Yunus a tax benefit worth 120 million taka, equal to about US$1.1 million, that his accountants had told him years ago was valid. The Yunus Centre issued a thoughtful and fact-based rejoinder to this ruling, which was covered in the media. Ultimately, the court ruled that he must pay this tax despite it being based on a vaguely worded law that is hardly ever enforced in this way, and in late July 2023 he did pay it.

More recently, the Anti-Corruption Commission said that it was going to take six months to complete its report and suggested that Professor Yunus was free to go about his life in the interim without any harassment by the Commission. Perhaps flustered by the Commission’s deliberate approach and with an election on the horizon, the courts — most likely pressured by the Prime Minister’s offce — inexplicably turned a meritless civil case against Professor Yunus and 3 other Grameen Telecom board members that is based on alleged labor law violations into a criminal case. They appear determined to use this obvious case of judicial harassment as a pretext to imprison Professor Yunus and 3 colleagues who serve on the Grameen Telecom board for up to six months, which would conveniently take away of freedom of an independent and respected civil society voice through the election. It would also vastly limit what this active 83-year-old was able to do to combat societal problems like poverty and climate change nationally and internationally during a crucial period of time.

An international law firm has undertaken a high-level review of the case. On the basis of that, the Protect Yunus Campaign has concluded that Professor Yunus is facing six months in prison for a crime that he not only did not commit, but that legally does not exist. Furthermore, four innocent [board members] of Grameen Telecom, including Professor Yunus, are now facing six months’ imprisonment in the immediate future, having been pursued by the Bangladeshi state in relation to various allegations regarding breaches of the Bangladesh Labor Act 2006.

Not only are the allegations entirely without merit, but the legal process being followed is wrong in law. Professor Yunus is being pursued criminally alongside his fellow defendants, when the Act only creates civil liability for the alleged breaches of it. The route the case has taken to date, from the initial investigation to its subsequent passage through various layers of the Bangladeshi court system, has been inappropriate, and is clear evidence of the Bangladeshi authorities’ and judiciary’s sanctioning of the persecution of Professor Yunus. Supporters of Professor Yunus have seen judges who have initially challenged the prosecution fall in line with the state’s narrative. A miscarriage of justice is happening, and the Bangladeshi state must not be allowed to carry it to its conclusion.

Only pressure from outraged Bangladeshi citizens and the international community is likely to avert the outcome of a prison term for Professor Yunus and his colleagues. With the growing constraints on free speech and the free press in Bangladesh, the importance of attention and vigilance by the international diplomatic community, media, and concerned citizens takes on the utmost importance. This article by respected journalist Patrick Pexton is a shining example of what must continue to be done to ensure a just outcome.

On August 24, the Economist weighed in with a scathing article titled, ““Bangladesh is lurching towards repressive one-party rule.” For more on their coverage, click here.

This letter has been widely viewed and commented on in Bangladesh and around the world. The list of newspapers, magazines, online media companies, blogs, and so forth that have commented positively on it are too long to list, but examples include this article and also this one. Also, a full-page article in the New York Times titled “Democracy in Bangladesh Is Quietly being Crushed: Millions on Trial in Bangladesh,” was published on September 4, the result of months of preparation.

One of the most promising and recent developments is that the deputy attorney general of Bangladesh publicly announced, on September 4, that he would not sign onto a letter promoted by his government criticizing our open letter. This was a huge piece of news reported and commented on inside Bangladesh and beyond. You can read about it here and here.

The United Nations has made its voice heard and condemned the oppression in Bangladesh, which you can read in Barrons (which printed an AFP wire story) here.

Predictably, the government and its allies have criticized our letter as inappropriate foreign interference. The most prominent official response has been a statement put out by the Foreign Ministry that emphasized the inappropriateness of foreigners trying to interfere in Bangladesh’s internal affairs, and the independence of the Bangladeshi judiciary. (That independence was, however, questioned by experts quoted in this Voice of America article, and elsewhere.)

The most compelling response to the government’s criticisms has come in the form of a two-part social media posting by Shayan S. Khan, the editor-in-chief of the venerable Dhaka Courier, a respected weekly English-language Bangladeshi magazine. The links to this analysis can be found here: part one and part two.

On September 5, 2023, the government was credibly accused of illegal malfeasance in the investigation of Professor Yunus in the labor law case, due to the falsification of documents. This important development can be read about here. In the meantime, journalist David Bergman published a meticulously researched analysis of the “money laundering” case brought by the Anti-Corruption Commission against Professor Yunus (one of an incredible 199 cases pending against him as of early November 2023). And now Time magazine has published a feature on Sheikh Hasina where they note that “Bangladesh has taken an authoritarian turn under Hasina’s Awami League party” and mention the persecution of Professor Yunus and the open letter in support of him that was published in August 2023. Perhaps in response to the growing public support for Professor Yunus, or fears that their U.S. visas might be canceled, the Anti-Corruption Commission unexpectedly deferred the publication of their final report to January 3, 2024 at the earliest.

On January 1, 2024, Professor Yunus and three colleagues were convicted of labor law violations and sentenced to six months in jail, and then given one month bail to allow for appeals, following allegations of breaches of the Bangladesh Labor Act 2006 by Grameen Telecom relating to the classification of employees, annual leave entitlement, and employee profit-sharing schemes.

Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement from the Protect Yunus Campaign, “A leader like Muhammad Yunus should be celebrated and free to contribute to improving the lives of people and the planet. The last place he should be is in prison. I call for an immediate reversal of this unjust verdict.”

Irene Khan, the former chief of Amnesty International who is now working as a United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, and who was present at Monday’s verdict, said the conviction was “a travesty of justice.” She added, “A social activist and Nobel laureate who brought honour and pride to the country is being persecuted on frivolous grounds.”

“Muhammad Yunus’s case is emblematic of the beleaguered state of human rights in Bangladesh,” said Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard in September 2023. “The abuse of laws and misuse of the justice system to settle vendettas is inconsistent and incompatible with international human rights treaties.”

Amnesty International added this after the verdict was announced, “Amnesty International believes that initiating criminal proceedings against Muhammad Yunus and his colleagues for issues that belong to the civil and administrative arena is a blatant abuse of labour laws and the justice system, and a form of political retaliation for his work and dissent.

And on January 3, the nation’s Anti-Corruption Commission announced that it would delay the announcement of additional charges against Professor Yunus and others until March 3, 2024.

On January 22, 12 U.S. Senators from both major parties wrote a strongly-worded letter to Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina urging her to “end the persistent harassment of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Professor MuhammadYunus—and the pattern of abusing laws and the justice system to target critics of the government more broadly.” They added that Professor Yunus noble efforts “should not be undermined over ongoing political vendettas, especially in a democratic nation of laws.”

On January 28, Professor Yunus’ legal team filed their appeal in the labor law case, and he and his co-defendants were granted bail during the time that their appeals were being considered. The following day, a meritless charge sheet was handed down against Professor Yunus and all of the other board members of Grameen Telecom by the Anti-Corruption Commission, more than a month before it was expected. On that same day, 242 global leaders including 125 Nobel laureates released a third open letter demanding an end what they termed a “travesty of justice.” The letter was widely commented on in the Bangladeshi media.

Meanwhile, Professor Yunus’ daughter Monica made poignant and articulate appeals to ensure her father’s safety on the BBC NewsHour, Channel 4 in the UK, and on CNN.

And in a shocking post-election escalation by the government and its allies, there was an illegal invasion of the Grameen Telecom building on February 12, 2024, which the Protect Yunus Campaign wrote about here based on interviews with impacted employees, and which was reported on in English first by New Age Bangladesh and later by The Daily Star. The intruders threatened the leaders of two leading nonprofit Grameen companies, Grameen Kalyan (Welfare) and Grameen Telecom, telling them that the chairpersons and chief executives of both organizations were being dismissed in favor of others appointed by them.

On March 3, Professor Yunus appeared in person at 2 different court hearings. First, he went before the Labor Tribunal related to his appeal of the verdict rendered against him on January 1, and secondly, before the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), related to its separate investigation of him. In both cases, he was given bail until April 16, the date of the next Labor Tribunal hearing. During the lead up to the March 3 court dates, many people including Richard Branson and former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made public statements in support of Professor Yunus. Also, the Clooney Foundation for Justice conducted their own investigation into the violation of Human Rights in this case and released a report which was highly critical of the Bangladesh government’s treatment of Professor Yunus. The Clooney Foundation plans to continue to stay involved and expects to analyze the Anti-Corruption Commission Court case as well.

On March 13, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin met with the Bangladesh Ambassador to the United States to urge an end to the Bangladeshi government’s troubling harassment of Professor Yunus. In the Press Release from the meeting, Durbin states, “The United States values its longstanding relationship with Bangladesh. But a failure to end this seemingly personal vendetta against Muhammad Yunus will negatively impact that partnership.”

In April, Professor Yunus attended the Global Baku Forum and was awarded the prestigious Tree of Peace Award. However, the education minister and foreign minister needlessly criticized the Yunus Centre for overstating UNESCO’s role in the award. The Yunus Centre issued a clarification, with documentation, showing how closely UNESCO was involved in the prize.

We are encouraged by recent video testimonials of support for Professor Yunus from the iconic primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall, NASA astronaut Ron Garan, and Kerry Kennedy of the RFK Human Rights Memorial. We also celebrated supportive commentary by leading human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and CIVICUS. We encourage people everywhere to record their own statements and publish them online.

As the legal actions against him advance in June 2024, prominent news sources have published favorable articles about Professor Yunus. Examples include Reuters, Agence France Presse, and The Guardian. Golam Mortoza, the editor of The Daily Star Bangla, published a 16-minute statement on his YouTube channel in support of Professor Yunus, which we translated into English.

Grameen Bank has revived a discredited complaint against Professor Yunus related to the company that he founded in the 1970s. The Yunus Centre released a rejoinder to answer these false allegations.

On June 12 the crisis took yet another worrying turn when Professor Yunus and 13 co-defendants were indicated based on baseless charges brought by the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission. One can find an article about the indictment here and a comprehensive refutation of the charges against him here.

Reporting by NPR, the leading national radio station in the United States, and Bloomberg in July 2024, has underscored that the mistreatment of Professor Yunus is part of a larger pattern of authoritarian regimes abusing human rights, press freedoms, and democratic norms. Senator Richard Durbin and three other prominent U.S. Senators released a strong statement in support of Professor Yunus on July 2. Time magazine published, “From ‘Banker to the Poor’ to ‘Bloodsucker’: The Sorry Saga of Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus” in July 2024.

The overall situation in Bangladesh—with students and others protesting against the current regime have led to hundreds of deaths—continues to be both tragic and volatile as of the end of July. Professor Yunus’ chose to appeal to global leaders to stop the needless killing of students and others. His statement has been influential; it was picked up by leading international newspapers and media companies, such as The Wire, Bloomberg, and Foreign Policy. Notably, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights responded to Dr. Yunus’ appeal by issuing a strongly worded statement condemning the government’s response to the protests. Subsequently, Professor Yunus was interviewed by The Hindu, a leading daily newspaper in India, in which he called for new elections in Bangladesh

The information below provides a review of the events related to the government’s attacks on Yunus since they began in late 2010. Resources and links from credible sources are provided throughout. This information is being provided to bring increased attention to what is occurring now and how it is the culmination of a senseless process that has been unfolding for more than a decade. Please check back for further updates on this evolving situation.

Norwegian “Documentary” on Grameen Bank Sparks an Uproar

In late November 2010, a Norwegian television network aired a documentary called “Caught in Micro Debt” that made several false accusations against Prof. Yunus and Grameen Bank. It alleged that funds received from a Norwegian aid agency, NORAD, were improperly transferred between Grameen Bank and Grameen Kalyan, a non-profit organization. This matter was clarified and resolved between NORAD and Grameen Bank in 1998. After the documentary aired, Norway promptly re-investigated the transaction, and again said there was no improper use of funds.

The documentary also claimed that Grameen Bank charged 30%-to-200% in interest, but a study of its interest rates by the leading authority MicroFinance Transparency noted that “Grameen has an extremely simple and transparent pricing system.” A Review Committee appointed by the Bangladesh government (see below) to examine the bank also reported that it has the lowest interest rates of any microfinance institution in Bangladesh, with 20% being the top rate that it charges on commercial (income-generating) loans. (Grameen Bank charges lower rates on other loans: 8% on housing loans, 5% on student loans, and 0% on loans to beggars.)

Even so, the government of Bangladesh led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed—who, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, reportedly has viewed Prof. Yunus as a political rival since he looked into setting up a political party in 2007—waged a campaign to force Prof. Yunus from his post as managing director of Grameen Bank. At a press conference following the release of the film, the prime minister accused Prof. Yunus of “sucking blood from the poor in the name of poverty alleviation.” Other officials of her government, including the foreign minister, the agriculture minister, top Awami League officials and special advisors also made repeated false allegations and personal attacks against Prof. Yunus.

Prof. Yunus ousted as Part of Government Effort to Undermine the Independence of Grameen Bank

In late 2010, the then 77-year-old finance minister, the late Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, repeatedly asked the then 70-year-old Yunus to resign, citing age as a factor. Prof. Yunus declined, citing the Grameen Bank Ordinance of 1983. The ordinance established that only the Grameen Bank Board of Directors had the right to hire or fire the managing director—because the bank is an independent entity. (The Bank’s board comprises 13 people: three, including the chairman, are appointed by the government; nine are elected by the bank’s 8.4 million borrower-owners; and the managing director serves in a non-voting, ex-officio capacity.)

In early March 2011, the Bangladesh Bank, backed by the Finance Ministry, informed Grameen Bank that Prof. Yunus had been acting as managing director without its consent and claimed it was a violation of its rules. The letter also cited his age as a factor, and called on the board to take appropriate action. Grameen Bank responded to these allegations and documented clearly that, in fact, the Bangladesh Bank had given express approval of his appointment which had been extended formally and indefinitely in the legally appropriate manner. Prof. Yunus and the nine independent directors then began a legal process to declare the 2011 letter from Bangladesh Bank invalid. After the country’s High Court summarily dismissed their petition, they turned to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which in early May 2011 also dismissed the petition, despite well-reasoned and impassioned arguments from Grameen Bank’s attorneys.

Grameen Bank fully cooperated with a Review Committee set up by the Bangladesh government in late 2010 to examine the bank’s operations. Its report, submitted to the Finance Ministry in April 2011, confirmed that there was no wrongdoing involved in the transfer of Norwegian aid funds, and noted that Grameen Bank’s interest rates were the lowest in the country. The Committee found no evidence of mismanagement or personal corruption among bank employees. Moreover, the committee complimented bank staff on their cooperation, and acknowledged the tremendous contributions made by the bank in improving the country’s socio-economic condition. However, the Review Committee’s incorrect assertion that Grameen Bank is a “government bank” rather than an independent entity, along with other incorrect findings, prompted a detailed refutation by Grameen Bank.

On May 12, 2011, Prof. Yunus gracefully announced his resignation as managing director of Grameen Bank. Journalists around the world mourned how this came about.

The bank’s Board of Directors then, by a near-unanimous (11-1) vote, created a search committee for a new managing director that would have been led by Prof. Yunus, but the government intervened and summarily and presumptuously named a new committee that included three government-appointed representatives, and only two borrower-directors. When this move failed due to its violation of the Ordinance of 1983, in August of 2012 the government amended the Ordinance.

Prof. Yunus’ forced retirement and the weakening of Grameen Bank through the amended Ordinance raised serious concerns for the empowerment of women in Bangladesh—and even the safety of bank employees and directors. There were multiple instances of harassment, including one instance where an employee union leader was abducted and tortured, as well as allegations of harassment of the women elected to the Board of Directors, who represent the Bank’s borrower-owners.

Government officials continued their efforts to discredit Prof. Yunus, with the Prime Minister even unjustly accusing him of lobbying the World Bank against funding of the country’s $1.2 billion Padma Bridge project, a charge that Prof. Yunus has denied and that even the Finance Minister refuted. (The World Bank cancelled the loan in June 2012, citing corruption within the government and contractors involved.)

Government Formed Commission to Investigate Grameen Organizations

In May 2012, the government announced an inquiry commission “to review the activities of Grameen Bank and its sister organizations with the intention that the commission will provide recommendations on what to do on this issue in the future.” The commission comprised four government functionaries without prior knowledge of the mission and operation of Grameen Bank. The Terms of Reference for the commission stated that part of its mission is to “review and recommend the regulatory institution and mechanism of the Grameen Bank as to how to bring the Grameen Bank under the purview of state regulatory agencies,” and because it further asks the commission to “comment on the ownership of the Grameen Bank and composition of its board of directors specifying qualifications for such membership,” many people believed the government was moving to take over the bank and grab ownership from its 8.4 million borrower-owners, who owned roughly 97% of the shares in Grameen Bank.

When the government action was announced Prof. Yunus shared his thoughts about the commission and the damage it could do. A few weeks later, all 17 female U.S. Senators wrote to the Bangladeshi Prime Minister asking her to reverse course, which made front-page news in Bangladesh.

Effectively removing the board of directors’ right to choose the bank’s managing director and vesting that power instead in the board’s government-appointed chairman, in August 2012, the Bangladeshi Government’s Cabinet – presided over by the prime minister – voted to amend the Ordinance of 1983.

Grameen Bank’s chairman in turn formed a five-person search committee for a new managing director that included only one who represented the bank’s borrower-owners; she promptly declined the post and in November 2012 petitioned the country’s High Court to examine the legality of the chairman’s moves.

The Cabinet also directed the Finance Ministry to examine and report on the salaries and benefits that Prof. Yunus received after he turned 60, and to examine whether he earned foreign currency that was tax-exempt during that time. These moves, which caused an uproar inside Bangladesh, almost immediately prompted the U.S. State Department to issue a public statement declaring its deep concern. It also led the Yunus Centre to post information about salaries, benefits, and wages Prof. Yunus earned overseas.

After a thorough investigation, the Bangladesh National Board of Revenue declared in February 2013 that it could not find any evidence of tax evasion by Prof. Yunus.

Prof. Yunus has worked to create a number of independent social businesses committed to promoting social welfare and the alleviation of poverty, and since his retirement he has continued to champion this concept to countries, organizations and leaders around the world. Today, dozens of organizations in Bangladesh and around the world have been created based on his ideas, though Prof. Yunus does not own shares in any of them. However, the commission’s mandate as stated in the Terms of Reference to “review the purposes, legal status and operations of the institutions, companies and enterprises established by the Grameen Bank,” signaled the government’s desire to ultimately take control of these Grameen enterprises, despite the fact that they are independent entities that were not created by Grameen Bank. In a hard-hitting and factual article, The Economist says that this move “doesn’t bode well for the security of property rights in Bangladesh.” Some have theorized that this is because Sheikh Hasina – whom The Economist said “is becoming increasingly autocratic” – is busy consolidating power and building outside alliances, an allegation that touched a nerve and prompted strong responses from the government.

In early February 2013, the inquiry commission released an interim report calling for the immediate resignation of the nine female borrower members of the board of the Grameen Bank.

It also called for the license of Grameenphone, the country’s leading mobile phone provider (a joint venture between Grameen Telecom and Telenor of Norway), to be suspended immediately based on its own assertions that the original license was obtained illegally. Despite this, the commission also said the company should continue operating—raising questions about how it could do so without a license. The outcomes for which the commission advocated strengthened the belief that these maneuvers were a move for government control of GrameenPhone. The report drew strong protests from the nine borrower-members and raised concerns at Telenor. Finance Minister Muhith later contradicted the commission, stating that Grameenphone’s license would not be revoked, but this episode created a great deal of uncertainty about the company’s future at the time, and also about the rule of law in Bangladesh.

In early April 2013, Minister Muhith, after meeting with the inquiry commission, announced that its interim recommendations regarding Grameen Bank would be implemented. This would fundamentally change the structure of Grameen Bank and hold the potential to seriously affect its work to empower Bangladesh’s poor.

Plans to Restructure Grameen Bank and More Threats and Accusations

In June 2013, the government commission released a working paper calling for the restructuring of Grameen Bank into 19 separate entities, with loose oversight from a main headquarters. It also suggested that the bank’s legal status be amended to be more like a state-owned industrial bank, with the government owning a 51 percent majority of the shares.

Professor Yunus condemned the action and there was widespread criticism in the media and also from the nine borrower-directors (who were democratically elected from among Grameen’s more than 8 million clients). Grameen Bank supporters in the U.S. Congress also voiced outrage. Because of the public outcry, the government postponed a workshop that had been scheduled to finalize the commission’s report.

The government also was rocked by several election defeats that some believe may have been influenced in part by its handling of Grameen Bank.

On July 22, 2013, Grameen Bank employees staged protests across Bangladesh in anticipation of the commission’s final report, but the commission ended its tenure without issuing one. In early August 2013, a report that the government was set to take over Grameen Bank was quickly refuted by the government.

The government continued to make personal attacks against Professor Yunus, with both Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and others in her government accusing him of financial wrongdoing. The Yunus Centre issued rebuttals to the statements asking Minister Muhith to show his proof or apologize and also called on the Prime Minister to retract her statements. In response, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina threatened legal action against the Yunus Centre. Several members of the ruling Awami League also accused Prof. Yunus of being a loan shark and a money launderer. Furthermore they deemed him a covert politician in response to his call for a caretaker government to oversee the upcoming Bangladeshi elections. The Awami League strongly opposed the plan for a caretaker government though caretaker governments had been a feature of Bangladeshi democracy dating as far back as 1991. The Yunus Centre published a five-point rejoinder to the most serious of these baseless accusations in July 2013.

Government Takes More Steps to Control Grameen Bank

On November 5, 2013, the Bangladeshi parliament passed a new law that gave the government power to take complete control of Grameen Bank. This new law, the Grameen Bank Bill 2013, replaced the Grameen Bank Ordinance of 1983.

The central bank could now audit and give directives to the bank, and the government could create rules and policies governing its operations. It confirmed the government’s right to appoint a chairman and newly defined a quorum as the chair and the other two government-appointed directors. This gave the government full control of the appointment of the managing director and sidelined the nine female borrower-members. Professor Yunus strongly condemned the new law.

On Jan 5, 2014, the ruling Awami League increased its control of the Bangladeshi parliament in an election that many observers viewed as a farce. An opposition boycott resulted in 153 of the 300 members of parliament being elected unopposed, and widespread ballot stuffing was widely suspected. Turnout was reported at just 10%-to-20%, although the victorious Awami League claimed it was 40%. Nonetheless, Sheikh Hasina claimed the election results gave her and her Awami League a mandate on a range of issues. Not insignificantly, the main opposition party, the Bangladesh National Party, had promised to restore Grameen Bank to its original form and to honor the role of Professor Yunus if it had won.

In April 2014, the government announced new rules for Grameen Bank board elections that transferred the authority for appointing election commissioners from Grameen Bank to the Bangladesh Bank. Despite the fact that Bangladesh Bank was mandated to hold elections within six months of the new rules going into effect, which would have been October 5, 2014, it objected to the additional responsibilities and no elections were held.

On October 30, 2014, Mohammad Shahjahan, who had been serving as Grameen Bank’s acting managing director, retired and was succeeded by ASM Mohiuddin. On November 7, 2014, the government amended the rules to give itself the authority to appoint the board members for the bank. The government can now form a three-member committee to elect the nine borrower-directors of the 12-member board. The changes gave the government the ability to take full control of the governance of Grameen Bank’s board. Many believed it would also use its increased powers to seek control of all the Grameen-related organizations in Bangladesh even though previous audits have upheld that all the organizations are separate legal entities.

What happened next effectively shut out the elected representatives of the bank’s members. On February 17, 2015, several media reported that the terms of the borrower-directors had expired, despite the fact that the terms of the new Grameen Bank Act and election rules state that their terms remain valid until a new election schedule is announced. A month later, the Finance Ministry informed the chair of the Grameen Bank board and its managing director that the female borrower-directors were no longer board members and that the three government-appointed members would now form the quorum. The borrow directors challenged the directive in court.

New Attacks on Professor Yunus

The government continued its personal campaign against Professor Yunus, ordering him or a representative to appear before the National Revenue Board on March 29, 2015, to answer charges that he owed $1.5 million in unpaid taxes for a donation made to two organizations. Professor Yunus disputed the allegation when it first arose in May 2014. In April 2015, the court issued a stay on the NRB’s attempt to collect the tax, effectively putting a stop to this effort to defame Prof. Yunus.

In February 2016, the Prime Minister renewed her accusations that Prof. Yunus somehow lobbied the U.S. government to convince the World Bank to withdraw funding from the Padma Bridge project. She announced in Parliament that the conspirators behind the World Bank’s decision to stop funding the Padma Bridge would be tried in court, and intimated (as she has several times since) that Prof. Yunus was the main conspirator. The Yunus Centre has steadfastly disputed her claims.

Prof. Yunus additionally was accused of conspiring with an army-backed caretaker government that assumed power in Bangladesh on January 22, 2007. Some government ministers have called for a commission of enquiry to investigate Prof. Yunus, former caretaker government advisor Mainul Hosseian, and Daily Star editor Mahfuz Anam.

Separately, Mr. Anam has been sued for defamation and sedition, after stating on a television show that he erred in printing several stories critical of Sheikh Hasina fed to him by intelligence agencies during the caretaker period 2007-2008 without independent verification. Several Awami League members of parliament and Sheikh Hasina’s son have publicly called for Mr. Anam to be charged with treason. Some fear this is an attempt to lay the groundwork to charge Prof. Yunus with the same crime.

On April 17, 2016, a U.S.-based conservative online publication, the Daily Caller, accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of using her position as U.S. Secretary of State to funnel money to Prof. Yunus and several Yunus-related organizations. The Yunus Centre refuted this allegation, as well as the charge that Prof. Yunus had made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Vidar Jorgenson further clarified the facts related to this baseless claim.

On the heels of the United States presidential election, in early December 2016 the Bangladesh National Bureau of Revenue launched fresh inquiries into the financial affairs of Prof. Yunus, his wife, the Yunus family trust, and Grameen Bank, and signaled plans to audit Prof. Yunus’ personal tax return.

Separately, Prof. Yunus has also noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult to get government approvals for Grameen-related projects, a charge the government has denied.

Questions about the future of Grameen Bank have also intensified. On January 1, 2017, Finance Minister Muhith was quoted saying that the bank needs to become “more relevant.” Calling for a “new role for Grameen Bank,” Minister Muhith asserted that the bank had already achieved its original aims, and that the poor in Bangladesh had gained their right to credit.

On January 17, 2017, it was reported that Prime Minister Hasina ridiculously claimed that Prof. Yunus “spent money” to get former U.S. Vice President Al Gore to publicly question her about plans for a controversial coal-powered plant during the World Economic Forum in Davos. The Yunus Centre quickly protested and called for evidence to support the accusation.

Speaking in parliament on January 27, 2017, the prime minister again accused Prof. Yunus of tax evasion and of instigating a 2012 World Bank decision to withdraw funding for the Padma Bridge project. Prof. Yunus continues to deny these absurd allegations.

In the meantime, a case related to the Padma Bridge scandal was withdrawn in a Canadian court on a technicality. Still, more telling was the fact that the contractor involved voluntarily agreed to a 10-year disbarment from bidding on World Bank contracts as part of a related settlement. Why would they agree to that settlement unless there was damning evidence, even if it was ruled inadmissible in a Canadian court? The only logical answer is that there was indeed significant corruption at work in the contracting process. An excellent summary of this troubling issue can be found in this well-researched article, and also here.

In late February 2017, Finance Minister Muhith praised Prof. Yunus and Sir Fazle Abed, the founder of BRAC (another leading Bangladesh development organization), for their work in reducing poverty through microfinance. This prompted a rebuke from the prime minister, who said her government’s policies were responsible for the reduced poverty rate. The prime minister’s public irritation was followed by fresh criticism of Prof. Yunus by members of her party in the parliament.

The intensity and breadth of attacks then quickened. New accusations of tax evasion were lodged against Prof. Yunus in March 2017, and the Bangladesh High Court requested a progress report from the government regarding the formation of a commission of inquiry on the “conspiracy behind the stopping of Padma Bridge funding.”

There were also new lines of attack regarding Grameen Telecom, which founded Grameenphone, the country’s largest mobile operator, with Telenor of Norway. Without providing evidence, Mohammed Nasim, was a Bangladesh telecoms minister in the 1990s, said Prof. Yunus improperly received the license to start Grameenphone. Mr. Nasim said another person was deprived of the license and that Prof. Yunus “sold that license to win the Nobel Prize.”

Ten lawsuits have also been filed against Prof. Yunus for failing to distribute dividends earned by Grameen Telecom in the last 10 years from its part ownership of Grameenphone. Prof. Yunus was sued as chair of Grameen Telecom’s board together with managing director Ashraful Hassan. Bangladesh labor law requires all companies to distribute five percent of net profits among all employees. However, this law does not apply to nonprofits like Grameen Telecom. Additionally, Prof. Yunus does not own Grameen Telecom (as claimed in the lawsuits) and is, therefore, not subject to this law.

In May, the allegations gained new life when the Prime Minister’s son Sajeeb Wazed Joy accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of threatening to have him audited by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service if the government of Bangladesh did not cease action against Professor Yunus. Joy made the accusations in two conservative U.S.-based publications without providing any evidence to corroborate his claim. (In fact, one of these biased articles at least had enough integrity to admit the flimsy nature of the accusations, writing, “The allegations by Wazed have not been independently confirmed by Circa [News], and [Wazed] has no documentation to back up his statement.”)

In Bangladesh, the government also announced plans to create a commission to identify those who “fabricated allegations of corruption” in the Padma Bridge project. The government has repeatedly accused Professor Yunus (without any evidence) of instigating the World Bank’s cancellation of the project, a charge he has steadfastly denied and refuted.

As a result of media reports on the unproven allegations made by the prime minister’s son against Sec. Clinton, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on June 1, 2017 requesting information on whether Sec. Clinton and her staff used official channels to help Prof. Yunus. In response, RESULTS sent a public letter to Senator Grassley addressing the allegations, especially the false and misleading information about Professor Yunus.

Speaking at an event in Stockholm in June 2017, the prime minister reportedly levied old allegations against Prof. Yunus, including his role in stopping World Bank funding for the Padma Bridge project. The Yunus Center responded to the allegations, noting that it has responded to the most of these allegations previously.

On July 28, 2017, the New York Times Editorial Board criticized the country’s human rights record and the government’s inaction, noting that more than 320 people had been unlawfully detained or had disappeared over the past eight years. A few days later, the government-appointed chair of Grameen Bank’s board called for the reversal of a 2014 government decision that changed the rules for electing board members. If approved, it would reinstate the bank’s original policy of electing directors from among its borrowers. The government changed the rules for electing directors in 2014 and never held an election, leaving the bank without a full board for more than three years.

The Bangladesh High Court also rebuked the government for delays in forming a committee to identify alleged conspirators in the Padma Bridge affair. Although the government has continuously accused Prof. Yunus’ of instigating the cancellation of World Bank funding for the project, in 2017 it missed multiple court-appointed deadlines to actually provide proof of these allegations. As of July 2022, no proof has been forthcoming.

As noted at the beginning of this summary, the persecution of Professor Yunus resumed in May 2022 with the Prime Minister threatening violence against him, making baseless claims of corruption, assigning blame to Professor Yunus for the government losing low-cost financing for constructing the Padma Bridge, announcing one investigation into his supposed traitorous behavior (and never following through), and announcing another into baseless allegations of alleged corrupt acts (which has begun).

The Yunus Centre, British journalist David Bergman, and the Economist have all debunked these allegations in strongly-worded, factual analyses. A recurring theme in independent analyses of these allegations is that they are part of a wider pattern of human rights abuses and stifling of dissent in Bangladesh under the current government. For example, Human Rights Watch published this chilling description of the human rights situation in Bangladesh in 2021.

The resumption of the persecution of Professor Yunus, and others, began once national elections were less than one year from being held. Attempting to distract the public with baseless accusations and almost comical “investigations” of citizens such as Professor Yunus, and trying to silence others through imprisonment, disappearances, extrajudicial executions, and harassment, has become the government’s strategy for staying in power.

Reporting on these developments has been limited in Bangladesh due to self-censorship based on attacks on journalists for criticizing the government or even for quoting citizens who complain about the deteriorating conditions in the country. Press coverage has been limited internationally due to the fact that many foreign journalists have had their visa applications denied. Yet, some courageous local journalists have continued to write about the outrages, and the Economist and the Financial Times have also weighed in with hard-hitting and well-researched articles.

In March 2023, 40 global leaders addressed the persecution of Professor Yunus in an open letter to the Prime Minister.

An Indian online publication known to often reflect the views of the Indian government published an article that urged the Prime Minister to stop her persecution of Professor Yunus, cleverly softening the blow of the implied criticism by slathering on praise for her leadership.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights urged the government to suspend the Digital Security Act, which has been a means of squelching criticism and harassing journalists and citizens in the country. The death of this woman after having been detained by the much-hated Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) under the Digital Security Act galvanized additional outrage. After this documentary on the RAB was released, the United States government said it would investigate the horrifying allegations and hoped that the Bangladesh government would do the same.

In April 2023, the Prime Minister attacked the United States government, a leading Bangladeshi newspaper, and Professor Yunus while addressing Parliament in a manner that was far beneath the dignity of her office. The Protect Yunus Campaign forcefully responded.

Also during April 2023, the government’s heavy-handed surveillance of Professor Yunus within Bangladesh has been stepped up as another form of harassment. He is forced to appear before a court every few weeks simply to prove that he is available for government “investigations,” requiring him to wait for up to six hours for a 15-minute process. Oftentimes, the elevator to the court, which is located on the fifth floor, is mysteriously out of order when Professor Yunus is summoned, forcing this 83-year- old Nobel laureate to walk up many flights of stairs.

In late April, he received a “demand notice” alleging that he had a few cases of unpaid taxes dating back to the early 1990s. He supplied proof that he had paid all required taxes within a few days, working with his staff through the Eid holidays (similar in importance to how Christmas is observed in other parts of the world) to do so within a strict deadline imposed by the government. These false allegations were the best that the government could come up with after years of auditing Professor Yunus’ personal finances, which included having the Bangladesh government’s Financial Intelligence Unit send requests to all of the banks in Bangladesh for any information that they had about Professor Yunus’s accounts and transactions.

Yet the admiration of and support for Professor Yunus among the people of Bangladesh and among governments, private sector leaders, and concerned citizens around the world continues to grow. He is planning a series of meetings and conferences during the summer and fall of 2023 to galvanize new action around his vision of “a world of three zeroes” — zero poverty, zero unemployment, and zero net carbon emissions. Sadly, due to the government’s attacks on the press, which was most recently reported on by the Guardian, few stories about his positive initiatives reach his countrymen and women these days.

The Guardian article began, “Four weeks ago, a reporter in Bangladesh was hauled from his office, badly beaten – and then thrown from the roof of his building, leaving him with fractures in his back, three broken ribs and a machete wound on his head. The journalist, Ayub Meahzi, believes he was targeted for reporting on alleged local government ties to a criminal group. The attack in Chattogram, also known as Chittagong, in south-east Bangladesh, has compounded fears of a further deterioration in press freedom in the country, which already languishes near the bottom of the annual global press freedom index, due to be published this week by the group Reporters Sans Frontières.”

It concluded with commentary and a chilling quote by a Bangladeshi professor teaching in the United States that reflected the seriousness of the attacks on the free press in Bangladesh: “[Professor Riaz] said the country as a whole was suffering because journalists were scared of doing investigative work on issues such as corruption.”

[He added:] “Journalists no longer think: ‘This is something happening in front of me, whatever it takes I’ll find out who’s behind it.’ No, they think: ‘What’s the minimum I can write and stay alive?’”

Following on the heels of this international coverage of the government’s attempts to intimidate journalists, on May 2 the Anti-Corruption Commission summoned Professor Yunus to appear before it on May 11. The letter cited reasons for the summons including that the Board of Directors of Grameen Telecom Company committed various infractions.

These charges suggested by the letter have already been fully refuted by, among others, the British journalist David Bergman, who has a deep understanding of Bangladesh. At its core, the government is trying to make an issue of the fact that Grameen Telecom, a Bangladeshi nonprofit organization, made a legal and very lucrative investment in GrameenPhone and has been using the dividends it receives to support a variety of social businesses—for-profit entities designed to solve social problems that are often called social enterprises or impact investees in other countries.

When some former Grameen Telecom employees filed a lawsuit claiming that a government law requiring for-profit companies (which Grameen Telecom is not) to share 5% of their profits with employees, Grameen Telecom initially followed its lawyers’ advice and refused to pay by virtue of it being a nonprofit organization (making the law clearly not applicable to it). But Grameen Telecom ultimately reached a generous out-of-court settlement with its employees on the matter and it was resolved—until, that is, the government and its “commission” got involved.

Despite this amicable resolution, on May 30, 2023 the government’s “Anti-Corruption Commission” charged Professor Yunus and several other Grameen Telecom board members with crimes related to the settlement. These charges are absolutely false. They focus on two minor clerical issues that came up during the execution of this complex settlement agreement. Despite alleging “corruption” on the part of Professor Yunus and the other board members, not a shred of evidence is produced that any funds were sent to accounts other than those specified in the agreement (and certainly not to any personal accounts of Professor Yunus or the other board members).

The fact that these charges — which empower the government to arrest Professor Yunus at any time — are based on such flimsy and easily disproven “evidence” gives a clear indication of how degraded the rule of law is in Bangladesh these days. Due to this being an ongoing legal issue, Grameen Telecom and the Yunus Centre may not comment publicly on the obvious flaws in the government’s case for a while.

In an unrelated matter, the High Court in Bangladesh ruled that Professor Yunus owes more than $1.1 million in “gift taxes” related to contributions he made to a charitable trust some years ago from his earnings from speaking fees and book sales. The Yunus Centre published a response to this ruling, which may be appealed by Professor Yunus.

Meanwhile, in June 2023 growing outrage over the overall deterioration of human rights and democracy in Bangladesh has led to condemnation from both conservatives and liberals in the U.S. Congress (in two separate initiatives) and from the human rights community.

A labor law case against Professor Yunus was coming to a head in late August 2023, and could result in his imprisonment for up to six months on meritless charges. An international law firm assessed the case against Professor Yunus and found the following:

“Professor Yunus is facing six months in prison for a crime that he not only did not commit, but that legally does not exist.

“Bangladesh is considered by Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index to rank 147 out of 180 in terms of how corrupt it is perceived to be (i.e., very corrupt), on a par with Iran and Guinea. Dissent and political opposition is not tolerated, with reports of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and the intimidation, harassment and arrest of journalists. It is widely alleged that Sheikh Hasina’s 2018 election to office was the product of election rigging. Events are moving quickly in Bangladesh, driven by a forthcoming election and a presumed desire to imprison Professor Yunus prior to that election.

“Professor Yunus is the Chairman of Grameen Telecom. Four innocent board members of Grameen Telecom, including Professor Yunus, are now facing six months’ imprisonment in the immediate future, having been pursued by the Bangladeshi state in relation to various allegations regarding breaches of the Bangladesh Labor Act 2006. The allegations relate to (a) employees not being converted to full-time status after an apprenticeship, (b) employees not being paid in lieu of annual leave, and (c) employees not being paid regarding the Workers Profit Participation Fund. The allegations are factually incorrect, and overlook the not-for-profit nature of Grameen Telecom. The employees of Grameen Telecom are receiving benefits as if they were regular employees, but Grameen Telecom has no provision for any permanent job structure precisely because it is a not-for-profit company, and employees are therefore appointed on a contractual basis.

“Not only are the allegations entirely without merit, but the legal process being followed is wrong in law. Professor Yunus is being pursued criminally alongside his fellow defendants, when the Act only creates civil liability for the alleged breaches of it. The route the case has taken to date, from the initial investigation to its subsequent passage through various layers of the Bangladeshi court system, has been inappropriate, and is clear evidence of the Bangladeshi authorities’ and judiciary’s sanctioning of the persecution of Professor Yunus. Supporters of Professor Yunus have seen judges who have initially challenged the prosecution fall in line with the state’s narrative. A miscarriage of justice is happening and the Bangladeshi state must not be allowed to carry it to its conclusion.”

In response to this ongoing persecution, an open letter was published on August 28 and that was followed by publication as a full-page ad in the international edition of the New York Times on August 31. It was preceded by a courageous statement of support from 34 public figures inside Bangladesh, and it was followed by public rallies in support of Professor Yunus. The number of signers among public figures such as yourself has gradually grown. When we released it, there were 174 signers including 103 Nobel laureates. Today, there are 186 signers including 108 Nobel laureates.

The United Nations has made its voice heard and condemned the oppression in Bangladesh, which you can read in Barrons (which printed an AFP wire story) here.

In the meantime, journalist David Bergman published a meticulously researched analysis of the “money laundering” case brought by the Anti-Corruption Commission against Professor Yunus (one of an incredible 199 cases pending against him as of early November 2023). And now Time magazine has published a feature on Sheikh Hasina where they note that “Bangladesh has taken an authoritarian turn under Hasina’s Awami League party” and mention the persecution of Professor Yunus and the open letter in support of him published in August 2023.

On January 1, 2024, Professor Yunus and three colleagues were convicted of labor law violations and sentenced to six-months in jail and given one month bail to allow for appeals, following allegations of breaches of the Bangladesh Labor Act 2006 by Grameen Telecom relating to the classification of employees, annual leave entitlement, and employee profit-sharing.

Irene Khan, former chief of Amnesty International now working as a United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, who was present at Monday’s verdict, said the conviction was “a travesty of justice.” She added, “A social activist and Nobel laureate who brought honour and pride to the country is being persecuted on frivolous grounds.”

“As my lawyers have convincingly argued in court, this verdict against me is contrary to all legal precedent and logic,” Professor Yunus said in a statement released after the verdict.

“I call for the Bangladeshi people to speak in one voice against injustice and in favour of democracy and human rights for each and every one of our citizens.”

Discussing the verdict, one of his lawyers, Abdullah Al Mamun, said, “It was an unprecedent judgement. No due legal process was followed in the case and it was rushed through.”

Mr. Mamun added, “The whole idea is to damage his international reputation. We are appealing against this verdict.”

Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “A leader like Muhammad Yunus should be celebrated and free to contribute to improving the lives of people and the planet. The last place he should be is in prison. I call for an immediate reversal of this unjust verdict.”

The international human rights community has also weighed in on this matter. In September 2023 Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnès Callamard wrote this in a widely circulated statement: “Muhammad Yunus’s case is emblematic of the beleaguered state of human rights in Bangladesh…. The abuse of laws and misuse of the justice system to settle vendettas is inconsistent and incompatible with international human rights treaties…. It is time for the Government to put an end to this travesty of justice.”

The Protect Yunus Campaign has called on the Bangladeshi government to immediately cease all forms of harassment against Professor Yunus, including initiating and supporting frivolous lawsuits against him, accusing him of working against the interests of the nation he has served since its independence in 1971, smearing his name by making baseless claims about him, and conducting repeated audits of his personal finances that have turned up no improprieties. All of the other cases pending against him, including one by the so-called Anti-Corruption Commission, should either be dismissed or put on hold pending reviews by independent legal experts with the participation of internationally reputed lawyers. On January 3, the Commission announced that the date for announcings its charges against Professor Yunus and his colleagues, which had been expected on that day, had been pushed back to March 3.

On January 28, Professor Yunus’ legal team filed their appeal in the labor law case, and he and his co-defendants were granted bail during the time that their appeals were being considered. The following day, a meritless charge sheet was handed down against Professor Yunus and all of the other board members of Grameen Telecom by the Anti-Corruption Commission, more than a month before it was expected. On that same day, 242 global leaders including 125 Nobel laureates released a third open letter demanding an end to what they termed a “travesty of justice.” The letter was widely commented on in the Bangladeshi media. Meanwhile, Professor Yunus’ daughter Monica made poignant and articulate appeals to ensure her father’s safety on the BBC NewsHour, Channel 4 in the UK, and on CNN.

On February 12, there was an illegal invasion of the Grameen Telecom building, by people claiming to be former military officers. They occupied the offices of eight leading Grameen companies that Professor Yunus established and breakthrough work in health care for the poor, renewable energy, and other important areas. Each day they would lock the doors when they left and not allow entry to any of the legitimate workers. When lawyers attempted to notify local police of this illegal invasion and occupation, the police would not take any action. When they looked into it they didn’t find anything wrong. The Protect Yunus Campaign wrote about it in depth here based on interviews with impacted employees. Which was also reported on in English first by New Age Bangladesh and later by The Daily Star. Additionally, The spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary General addressed this at a press conference and according to one report, “The US Department of State condemned the raids on offices linked to Bangladesh’s Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus saying they could hinder foreign investment in the South Asian nation”.

However, there has been a strong show of public support for Professor Yunus. Representatives from the European Union, the United States, Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, and Norway were present in the courtroom on March 3. Prior to the trial, there were 2 noteworthy statements of support from internationally recognized figures. There was this 2-minute-long video statement from British business magnate Richard Branson; additionally this statement by Ban Ki-moon, the former Secretary General of the United Nations. Simultaneously, The Clooney Foundation for Justice released the report of the results of their investigation which was highly critical of the Bangladesh government’s treatment of Professor Yunus. The press release accompanying the report stated, “Based on its review of the proceedings, there are significant grounds for finding that the case against Professor Yunus constitutes an abuse of process”.

Professor Yunus continues to gather support both in Bangladesh and internationally by telling his story by speaking with media outlets. 2 of the interviews that were done in Bengali are Deutsche Welle Bangla and BBC Bangla. He also sat down with Christiane Amanpour of CNN for a widely viewed interview. Additionally, he was interviewed by Fred de Sam Lazaro for the series, Agents for Change on PBS, which had a lot of helpful context as to why this case constitutes a violation of the victims’ human rights. His interview with Die Zeit Online was also seen around the world. Additionally, The World of Three Zero’s documentary was released early by the filmmakers to ensure that the messaging of Professor Yunus’s positive impact on the world isn’t lost in this baseless trial.

In an important act of solidarity with Professor Yunus, Senator Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate, met the Bangladesh Ambassador to the United States and emphasized the importance of justice for Professor Yunus. His office issued a strong statement, which included this direct quote from Senator Durbin after the meeting: “The United States values its longstanding relationship with Bangladesh, and I appreciate its early help to Rohingya refugees fleeing violence in Burma. But a failure to end this seemingly personal vendetta against Muhammad Yunus will negatively impact that partnership. As such, in today’s meeting with Mr. Imran, I again called for an end to the harassment of Professor Yunus.” This statement also appeared with a photo on Twitter.

In April, Professor Yunus attended the Global Baku Forum and was awarded the prestigious Tree of Peace Award. This same award was bestowed upon Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2014—an award she proudly accepted. However, the education minister and foreign minister needlessly criticized the Yunus Centre for overstating UNESCO’s role in the award. The Yunus Centre issued a clarification with complete documentation showing how closely UNESCO was involved in the prize, even if it was not technically a UNESCO prize per se.

We are encouraged by recent video testimonials in support of Professor Yunus from the iconic primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall, NASA astronaut Ron Garan, and Kerry Kennedy of the RFK Human Rights Memorial. We also celebrated supportive commentary by three leading human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, the Clooney Foundation, and CIVICUS. We encourage people everywhere to record their own statements and publish them online.

On May 2, Professor Yunus and his co-defendants were issued another extension of their bail by the Anti-Corruption Commission Court (ACC). Professor Yunus’ lawyers asked for the extension to be granted until the appeals process is complete, but it was only given until June 2, when they will appear in court in person again. The next court date with the Labor Tribunal will be on May 16, continuing the pattern of in person court dates every other week related to these two meritless cases that have become an enormous distraction to Professor Yunus and his colleagues, and may result in their being sent to jail.

As the legal actions against Professor Yunus advanced in June 2024, prominent news sources have published favorable articles about him and his work. Examples include Reuters (which was reprinted by other media companies throughout the world including The Times of India and The Straits Times of Malaysia), Agence France Presse, and The Guardian. He was also interviewed by Bonik Barta in Bangladesh, which we feel provides a good overview of Professor Yunus’s state of mind after many months of prosecution. (An English translation of the interview can be found here.) Golam Mortoza, the editor of The Daily Star Bangla made a 16-minute statement on his YouTube channel in support of Professor Yunus, which we translated into English. In the statement, he disputes many charges against Professor Yunus, the process being taken to pursue those charges, and the claims by Grameen Bank’s chief legal adviser that minimize Professor Yunus’ role in the evolution of Grameen Bank as a world-renowned success story.

Despite this ongoing case against him, Professor Yunus has continued his work to have a positive impact around the world. He’s continued his collaboration with the International Olympic Committee related to the upcoming games, and has been able to bring his model of social business to the Olympic Village in Paris for the 2024 Summer Olympics. Following his recommendations, about one-third of the 2,800 apartments that were built for athletes to use during the games will be converted into social housing for low-income people once the Olympics and Paralympics wrap up in September. He has also begun advising Milan-Cortina, the Italian host of the 2026 Winter Olympics.

Grameen Bank has revived a discredited complaint against Professor Yunus related to the company that he founded in the 1970s. The Yunus Centre released a rejoinder to answer these false allegations. This is a lamentable case because Grameen Bank and Professor Yunus both won the Nobel Peace Prize and this is the first time winners are seeking legal action against one another.

On June 12 the crisis took yet another unfortunate turn when Professor Yunus and 13 co-defendants were indicated based on baseless charges brought by the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission. They were also inhumanely forced to stand in a steel cage for the 2 most recent court cases for up to an hour in the heat of a non-air-conditioned courtroom. One witness in the courtroom called this treatment, “inhumane and medieval”. One can find an article about the indictment here and a comprehensive refutation of the charges against him here.

Senator Richard Durbin and three other prominent U.S. Senators released a strong statement in support of Professor Yunus on July 2. Shortly thereafter, bail was in fact extended until August 14, as reported here. In yet another article about Professor Yunus’ persecution that was highly favorable to him, Time magazine published, “From ‘Banker to the Poor’ to ‘Bloodsucker’: The Sorry Saga of Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus” in July 2024.

The overall situation in Bangladesh—especially in terms of students and others protesting against the current regime, and the regime’s brutal response to the protests that have led to hundreds of deaths—continues to be both tragic and volatile as of the end of July. Professor Yunus’ chose to boldly speak out about the situation, making an appeal to global leaders to stop the needless killing of students and others. His statement has been influential; it was picked up by leading international newspapers and media companies, such as The Wire, Bloomberg, and Foreign Policy. Notably, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights responded to Dr. Yunus’ appeal by issuing a strongly-worded statement calling “on the Bangladesh Government to immediately end the violent crackdown against protesters and political opponents, fully restore access to the Internet and social media and ensure accountability for human rights violations.” Subsequently, Professor Yunus was interviewed by The Hindu, a leading daily newspaper in India, in which he called for new elections in Bangladesh.

Beyond its focus on justice for Professor Yunus, the Protect Yunus Campaign calls on the Bangladesh government to immediately cease all forms of its ongoing assaults on the country’s democracy, on human rights, and on freedom of the press.

Strong Global Support

Since 2010, a network of supporters inside and outside of Bangladesh—millions of ordinary people, as well as well-known business leaders, politicians, and diplomats—have contributed their time and effort to protect the reputation of Prof. Yunus and the independence of Grameen Bank. Their work will continue as long as there are threats to Professor Yunus. Most recently, they have found expression on Twitter through efforts to draw attention to the strong article in the Economist published in October 2022 and through the appeal from 40 global leaders to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to cease her harassment of Professor Yunus and the widespread support of their call among citizens of the world via social media and other means.

Back to Protect Yunus Home

Summary of Issues Surrounding Prof. Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank and the Bangladesh Government

Share this:

Like this: