Protect Yunus

The labor law verdict against Professor Yunus and three other Grameen Telecom directors has been rightly condemned within Bangladesh and around the world as a clear miscarriage of justice. Among the many expressions of outrage about such a national embarrassment, this article by Mahfuz Anam, the editor of the Daily Star, stands out. Honestly, there have been too many columns, news articles, and television segments critical of the judgment to even begin to count or list them.

But let’s look at this case, and others that are pending, from the perspective of whether the legal process is being followed consistently in Bangladesh, or whether there is one, much harsher standard for enemies of the Prime Minster, and another for everyone else.

Shayan S. Khan, the executive editor of the Dhaka Courier, which is comparable to Time magazine in the United States, has been looking at these very issues for months. Most recently, he published an article in the Courier this week titled “A Spectacle of Injustice,” along with an excellent post to his Facebook page, which is appended to the bottom of this article.

Khan identifies many instances where the legal system has bent over backwards to treat Professor Yunus unjustly. Some examples:

The case has been put on an incredibly fast track. Khan cites a 2021 study by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) showing that labor courts typically took 630 days to award compensation, and another 475 for the compensation to be paid. But according to Khan, it only took Judge Merina Sheikh just 130 days “to weigh up all the facts and arguments from each side … and pronounce her guilty verdicts.” Conveniently, this rushed verdict was handed down a few days before the so-called “election” scheduled for January 7, and on a day that was a national holiday in many countries around the world.

In all other such cases, the organization supposedly committing the violations would be charged. In this case, it was Professor Yunus (the non-executive chairman of the organization) and three other directors. In all other such cases, the case would initially be tried as a civil matter, not as a criminal one, as was the case here. (See below for how charges could, theoretically, ultimately become crimal in nature after several steps were taken that were not in this case.)

The violations of the Bangladesh Labour Act of 2006 supposedly committed by Grameen Telecom amount to these three: (1) the misclassification of employees, (2) not giving employees enough paid vacation, and (3) not depositing 5% of company profits into a worker’s welfare fund. For these alleged violations, jail time has been ordered. Khan compares this to the treatment of the massive garments industry. He writes, “How many factory owners, not just RMG [ready made garments companies] but any kind of manufacturing, where we’ve seen workers dying due to unsafe conditions, have faced criminal, not civil charges, in light of the countless deadly incidents we’ve witnessed over the years?”

It turns out there has been just one. He continues, “Only Delwar Hossain of Tazreen Garments/Fashions. And even he hasn’t been convicted yet, over the deadliest fire ever in the industry, globally…

“All other cases emanating from such incidents have filed only civil charges against the owners [and] the relief sought has been compensation. But in the case of Grameen Telecom, where no one died or got injured, they just had to file criminal charges. And see it through to a conviction in the same labour tribunal that has seemingly forgotten [about] Delwar’s offences, maybe even his existence…

“Tazreen burned to the ground in 2012, killing around 120 workers who were locked inside the factory floor — a policy implemented by the management to prevent workers from ‘wandering off’ during work hours apparently. That man [responsible] is free today, on bail but not convicted. Dr Yunus has been granted post-conviction bail as well and his appeal will move this to the High Court. But technically, he has a lesser claim on breathing free in Bangladesh today, than Delwar Hossain. And that is your state of justice in Bangladesh.” Recall that the deadly factory fire occurred more than 11 years ago.

Now let’s look at the charge of Grameen Telecom failing to provide 5% of its profits to workers welfare fund. Forget for the moment that Grameen Telecom is nonprofit organization, so it is not covered by this provision of the Labor Act. Let’s also ignore that the funds were eventually paid in an out of court settlement that made many Grameen Telecom employees very wealthy by any standard. (Uncompensated board members like Professor Yunus, it should be noted, received nothing under the settlement.)

Let’s simply ask this question: Are other for-profit companies in Bangladesh paying into these funds? Khan’s reporting shows that 140,000 of the 600,000 companies in Bangladesh have been obliged under the Labor Act to contribute some of their profits into these workers funds, but only 300 have ever done so. (And Khan notes that it is not clear that they have contributed the required amounts.) Khan concludes, “[This] means there are some 139,700 firms in the country today in violation of the law [relating to contributions to worker’s welfare funds], but only Grameen Telecom has ever been prosecuted for it—that too, criminally.”

What about the highly profitable garments sector? They got a waiver making it unnecessary for them to contribute to the workers’ funds. What about the banking industry? They have declined to contribute anything over 18 years, and instead are fighting to secure their own exemption from having to pay.

Finally, let’s look at how the trial was conducted. Under Bangladeshi law, the written verdict is supposed to be read out loud in its entirety. Did that happen on January 1? No. Khan quotes Grameen Telecom’s lawyer Barrister Abdullah Al Mamun describing what actually happened: “The rule is, the judge will read the full judgement in open court. That is how it started. But when she saw that every line of the judgement contained errors, she started omitting line after line. She just gave the order, leaving out the full verdict. It is against the law. The rule is that the entire verdict should be read out in the presence of the accused.”

Khan further reports that Mamun substantiated numerous ways that the verdict flouted the Labor Law. He quotes Mamum as saying, “If 5 percent of the profit is not paid to the workers, then section 236 of the Act specifies a time will be fixed for it. If then it is unpaid, they will go for a fine or compensation. Even then, if the money remains unpaid, measures will be taken according to the Public Demand Recovery Act. They can appeal to the government to act on the employer to pay up. None of this was followed. The Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal case can only be filed after a civil case fails to realise the compensation. Here the opposite was done.”

Khan concludes his article in the Courier with the following words, “Barrister Al Mamun said they (he and his team) presented 109 contradictions in the state’s arguments. Usually even in murder cases, presenting a single contradiction can be enough to win an acquittal. But here, even 109 of them were not enough. It all goes to underline the travesty of justice that we have all witnessed, and the damning picture it paints of the state of our judicial system means that even as things move to the High Court, we cannot quite be confident of a sighting of Lady Justice yet.”

Equal justice in Bangladesh? Certainly not for Professor Yunus or others whom the Prime Minister perceives as enemies.  

Post on Shayan S. Khan’s Facebook page that was Made Available to the Public

How many firms in BGMEA have the welfare fund for workers setting aside 5% of their profits, in accordance with the Labour Act?

(Dr Yunus and three others have just been convicted by a labour court for not having this at Grameen Telecom, which is registered as a not-for-profit company and so their accounting doesn’t even allow for profit/loss.)

The answer of course, is zero. That’s more than 3500 profit-oriented companies in violation of the law, which means well but has been ignored on this by everyone.* But they only went after GT – it’s a fact. There are over 600,000 registered companies in th country, of whom none are known to have formed this fund. Yet GT is the only entity that has ever faced litigation for it. And that too criminal, not civil.

How many factory owners, not just RMG but any kind of manufacturing, where we’ve seen workers dying due to unsafe conditions, have faced criminal, not civil charges, in light of the countless deadly incidents we’ve witnessed over the years?

Only Delwar Hossain of Tazreen Garments/Fashions. And even he hasn’t been convicted yet, over the deadliest fire ever in the industry, globally (yes that’s ever, anywhere, surpassing the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire from early 20th century New York). The case has been kicked into the long grass, and he has been out on bail now for years. Even got elected to some AL-affiliate organisation’s presiding council or something. Bless him.

All other cases emanating from such incidents have filed only civil charges against the owners, i.e. the relief sought has been compensation. But in the case of Grameen Telecom, where no one died or got injured, they just had to file criminal charges. And see it through to a conviction in the same labour tribunal that has seemingly forgotten Delwar’s offences, maybe even his existence. It all took only about six months. Tazreen burned to the ground in 2012, killing around 120 workers who were locked inside the factory floor – a policy implemented by the management to prevent workers from ‘wandering off’ during work hours apparently.

That man is free today, on bail but not convicted. Dr Yunus has been granted post-conviction bail as well and his appeal will move this to the High Court. But technically, he has a lesser claim on breathing free in Bangladesh today, than Delwar Hossain.

And that is your state of justice in Bangladesh.

*They are not in violation of the law. I’ve since come to know that with an amendment brought to the Labour Act in 2013, the RMG sector got itself exempted “from the application of Chapter XV of the Act.” That’s the part that contains the offences for which GT has been convicted. Most notably, RMG firms are not required to distribute 5% of profits to their workforce.

The most generous way to explain the errors contained in statements by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that their fact checkers are not especially active or diligent. Previously, the Protect Yunus Campaign reported on the grossly inaccurate claims by the Foreign Minister about the cost of the full-page ad we placed in the Washington Post in March 2023, reproducing an open letter to the Bangladeshi Prime Minister (that was later followed up by another open letter).

Now, in a statement criticizing a U.N. report on human rights abuses in Bangladesh, the Ministry refers to Grameen Telecom being “owned” by Professor Muhammad Yunus. Even the most basic understanding of Bangladeshi law would reveal that nonprofit companies like Grameen Telecom have no owners. One would think that in a response to the serious charges being leveled by the United Nations, the Ministry would be at pains to avoid misstatements of any kind.

Grameen Telecom issued a rejoinder in response to the Ministry’s statement, and called on it to issue a correction. Grameen Telecom’s rejoinder appears below.

Rejoinder to Ministry of Foreign Affairs Rejoinder to the UN Rapporteurs

On November 21 and 22, 2023, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a rejoinder to various newspapers and online portals against the statements of three rapporteurs on human rights in Bangladesh. It is mentioned in the related news that, “The case of Dr Muhammad Yunus is pending before the court for depriving the workers of a company owned by him for their fair dues”. A company owned by him is referred to as “Grameen Telecom”. This information is completely false and baseless. We strongly protest against the Government’s false statement in their Rejoinder to the UN.

It should be noted that Dr. Muhammad Yunus has no ownership of any of the organizations he created, including Grameen Telecom. Prof Yunus is an honorary chairman of Grameen Telecom. He takes no honorarium or financial benefits for this service.

Grameen Telecom is a not-for-profit company registered under Section 28 of the Company Act 1994. Its dividend is not distributable as per the Companies Act. Being a not-for-profit company, its earned profits are not distributed as it has no shareholders. It should be noted that no company has been established in Bangladesh or elsewhere which is owned by Dr. Muhammad Yunus.

We request the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to provide a correction to the information previously provided to the United Nations.

The labour law case involving Professor Yunus is centered on alleged violations of the Bangladesh Labour Act of 2006. The critique of this legal proceeding has centered on the fact that the defendant should be the organization that supposedly violated the Act—Grameen Telecom—rather than any individual or individuals, and also on the reality that the penalty should be, at most, a fine of the local equivalent of $227, not up to six months in prison for four of its volunteer directors. But what has gotten lost in this, and what might be confusing to those not familiar with Professor Yunus’ work in the 1990s, is the significance of the organization Grameen Telecom, which Dr. Yunus established and for which he has served as an unsalaried chairman since its inception.

In short, Grameen Telecom was established to ensure that tens of thousands of Grameen Bank borrowers were able to set up cellular payphone enterprises soon after GrameenPhone—a company Grameen Telecom is also an investor in—was launched as a highly successful business. Professor Yunus’ idea, revolutionary at the time, was that with proper support, poor women could be the agents of bringing new technologies to their villages in a business format that vastly accelerated their journey out of poverty.

To fill this gap in understanding, Professor Yunus recently told the story of how and why he launched Grameen Telecom and of the impact it had on thousands of formerly poor Bangladeshi women, on the concept of doing business with the poor that is now taught in business schools around the world, and ultimately on the global mobile telecommunications industry.

While it might sound odd, on the surface, to set up a Bangladeshi nonprofit company to work in the local mobile telecommunications market, on further inspection it represents one of the most farsighted and high-impact decisions Professor Yunus ever took. The fact that this institution is being harassed rather than celebrated by the Bangladeshi government is one of the many tragedies unfolding in the country today.

The “Telephone Ladies” of Bangladesh will be remembered by historians as a vital force propelling the global mobile telecommunications revolution of the early 21^st century, just as the persecution of Professor Yunus will be recalled as one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated by the Bangladeshi government.

The growing chorus of voices insisting on free and fair elections, freedom of the press, and respect for human rights in Bangladesh — all of which have been sadly lacking in recent times in the country — now includes more than a dozen Senators and Members of Parliament in Australia. In a carefully worded but still strong letter, they ask their Prime Minister to make advocating for reform in Bangladesh an important part of their nation’s foreign policy. We will be eager to see how the PM and the Australian High Commissioner in Bangladesh respond to this urgent and important message, which is reproduced below.

Dear Prime Minister,

We, the undersigned MPs are writing to express our concerns about the ongoing human rights violations in Bangladesh and their potential impact on the upcoming national election. We believe that it Is crucial for the election to be conducted in a free, fair, peaceful, inclusive and participatory manner.

As a result, we are writing to you after the United States government’s recent announcement regarding a new visa policy in support of Bangladesh’s effort to conduct a democratic election. The policy restricts visas for Bangladeshi individuals suspected of undermining the election process, including government officials, political party members, law enforcement, judiciary, and security services.

We consider any actions that undermine the democratic election process. such as vote rigging, voter intimidation, or measures to prevent political parties, voters, civil society, or the media from disseminating their views, to be worrying. It is vital that our government follows suit with similar policies, whether through Magnitsky sanctions or otherwise, to ensure that individuals responsible for undermining the democratic process in Bangladesh cannot enter Australia.

We are alarmed by the allegations of abuse of power by senior members of the ruling party and the shocking human rights violations suffered by ordinary citizens, community activists, union Ieaders, and opposition political party members. These crimes have been documented by Amnesty International and by the U.S. Department of State in its report on Bangladesh.

The reports of torture linked to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed’s government, particularly by the Rapid Action Battalion, which numerous internationally reputed NGOs have characterized as a government “death squad” are deeply concerning. Two informers and former members of the RAB confessed that the incidents of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances could not be possible without the approval of the Home Minister and Prime Minister have only added to our concern.

We urge the government to take appropriate steps to guarantee that the upcoming election meets international standards for free, fair. peaceful, inclusive and participatory elections. We urge you to make representations to the Bangladesh High Commissioner in this regard.

To ensure this, we believe The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner’s Human Rights Standards on Elections should be implemented and followed. The past two national elections in 2014 and 2018 were fraught with controversies and irregularities, including intimidation, and violence against opposition political parties, civil society, and the media. As reported by international human rights organisations, there have been extra-judicial killings, abductions, and torture inflicted upon ordinary citizens, community activists, union leaders, and opposition political party members.

The general election is expected to be held at the end of 2023 or beginning of 2D24. We urge the government to develop a constructive relationship with the Bangladesh government representatives before the election to prevent what was witnessed in the 2014 and 2018 elections. To that end we are seeking that the Australian government:

• Clearly express to the Bangladesh government Australia’s expectation that the election will be held in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner’s Human Rights Standards on Elections.

• Commit to working with the Bangladesh government and the UN and international community to help supervise and conduct free and fair elections in Bangladesh, including ensuring unfettered access during the election period to independent electoral observers, and

• Publicly place on notice the Bangladesh government that should any senior officials endorse, promote or participate in serious breaches of democratic electoral standards, that they will be considered by Australia for targeted Magnitsky sanctions.

As a government committed to promoting the rule of law and human rights through diplomacy, we hope that you will give this correspondence serious attention, and we look forward to hearing from you on the matters we have raised.

Yours sincerely.

The undersigned MPs

Senator David Shoebridge

Senator Jordan Steele-John Adam Bandt MP

Senator Larissa Waters

Senator Nick McKim

Senator Janet Rice

Senator Barbara Pocock

Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP

Stephen Bates MP

Senator Mehreen Faruqi

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson

Senator Dorinda Cox

Senator Penny Allman-Payne

Max Chandler-Mather MP

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young

The networks of people, businesses, and civil society organizations making their voices heard about the persecution of Professor Yunus, and other Bangladeshis, is growing every day. The latest to weigh in is Social Enterprise UK, a leading network of socially motivated businesses in the United Kingdom. Below is an open letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak calling on him to take action to address the treatment of Professor Yunus. 

October 2, 2023

Dear Prime Minister,

As Chair of Social Enterprise UK, I am writing on behalf of social enterprises in the UK. As a citizen of the Commonwealth, I am writing on behalf of Professor Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Laureate and founder of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.

In 1976, Prof Yunus pioneered the provision of collateral-free loans to the poor, mostly women, in rural Bangladesh. For creating a new model of microfinance, taken up around the world, Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – making him one of only a handful of people to have received the Nobel Prize, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom and the United States Congressional Gold Medal. Yunus’ work has inspired millions, showing how enterprise can fight poverty, how business can be a force for good, and how finance can serve society. He has subsequently set up businesses fighting poverty, creating jobs, delivering healthcare and nutrition, advancing agriculture, education, energy and more – pioneering new models of social business through which profits are directed to people and the planet. Yunus is the father of microcredit and social business, and a true global hero.

Yet Prof Yunus also has a close relationship with this country. He has worked with Social Enterprise UK, shared platforms with our leaders, founded the Yunus Centre in Glasgow, inspired our own social entrepreneurs (such as Fair Finance in East London), and strengthened the bonds between the people of the UK and Bangladesh. Encouraged by Yunus’ leadership, the UK and Bangladesh have led the way in social enterprise – often together – and enhanced the reputation of both our countries around the world.

Yet in August this year, 188 global leaders – including over 100 Nobel laureates, Barack Obama, former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon – signed an urgent letter calling on the government of Bangladesh under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to stop the “continuous judicial harassment” of Yunus and end his persecution. The letter asked Hasina to immediately suspend judicial proceedings against Prof Yunus. Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern for the “continued intimidation and harassment of human rights advocates and civil society leaders through legal proceedings in Bangladesh, including Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus” and the UN has said they are “concerned that smear campaigns against him, often emanating from the highest levels of government, risk undermining his right to a fair trial and due process in line with international standards.”

In response, the Prime Minister Hasina has said that she would welcome international experts and lawyers in Bangladesh to assess the legal proceedings and examine the charges against Yunus. I believe this is where you can play a pivotal role – offering to coordinate and provide international expertise to support impartial local experts and ensure the just resolution of the situation. We call on you to help take a few small steps to help bring justice to bear.

Yours sincerely,

Lord Victor Adebowale CBE Chair, Social Enterprise UK

cc:

The Rt Hon. James Cleverly, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

The Rt Hon. Stuart Andrew, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, DCMS

Social Enterprise UK is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales as the Social Enterprise Coalition. Company Number 4426564. VAT Number 839549672. Website: www.socialenterprise.org.uk

Registered office: Sabat Accountants, Suite G1, Hartshorne House Delta Gain, Carpenders Park, Watford, England, WD19 5EF

Recently the Bangladesh government has renewed it baseless investigation of Professor Yunus and others associated with Grameen Telecom through the so-called “Anti-Corruption Commission,” even as the labor law case against him progresses towards its predetermined conclusion. This article in Prothom Alo (English) outlines the call for Professor Yunus and other Grameen Telecom directors to appear before the commission this week to respond one more time to their outrageous charges of “embezzlement.”  

Given the obviously political (rather than judicial) nature of both of these cases, Professor Yunus’ lead lawyer has stepped up his public appearances to make the case for the Nobel laureate and founder of Grameen Bank. In one recent interview, he was questioned about the discredited documentary, “The Micro-Debt.”

Soon after this film was released, Alex Counts, then the president of the Grameen Foundation, sent a letter to Hans-Tore Bjerkaas, Editor-in-Chief Brennpunkt, and Vibeke Haug of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. The text of the letter appears below:

I am writing to you to explain three serious respects in which the film contains false and defamatory accusations against Grameen Bank and Professor Muhammad Yunus and to invite you to discuss what NRK could do to reduce the harm inflicted upon Grameen Bank due to the erroneous statements in the film.

NORAD Aid

One principal charge made in the film relates to financial dealings between Grameen Bank and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), a directorate under the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The charge concerns matters that arose more than a decade ago, that were promptly addressed by Grameen Bank, the relevant Norwegian authorities and the government of Bangladesh, and that were fully and finally resolved at the time. By selective use of a few documents from that time, the film suggests that very significant sums of aid money were diverted by Grameen Bank, in violation of the conditions on which they were provided, and used for improper commercial enrichment.

I assume that you are aware that, as a consequence of the film’s airing on November 30, 2010, Norway’s Minister of International Development commissioned an urgent and comprehensive review of all NORAD’s support for Grameen Bank. This report, published on December 6, examined the relevant earlier exchanges, and concluded that the issues raised at the time by the Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka had been satisfactorily explained and resolved. The NORAD report demonstrates that the film contains incorrect statements and gives a false impression of the 1997-98 issue.

Interest rates

Another central charge made in the film is that Grameen Bank charges excessive interest rates. Specifically, the film accuses Grameen Bank of charging its borrowers annual interest rates of between 30% to 200%. This was and is factually incorrect. As an expert on microfinance, I was interviewed by Mr. Heinemann on film about this issue, as was David Roodman, Senior Fellow of the Center for Global Development. We both specifically told Mr. Heinemann that his figures were wrong, but he ignored the corrections. We have since set out on film how our statements to Mr. Heinemann were willfully misrepresented in the film. See this video and this one.

In response to the unfounded assertions about interest rates in the film, Grameen Bank invited an independent expert, Chuck Waterfield of MicroFinance Transparency, to examine their rates, providing full access for that purpose. The MicroFinance Transparency report, dated January 4, 2011 and which can be found here, shows, in particular, that the highest effective interest rate charged for Grameen Bank’s “basic loan” (the most expensive) is 22.84%. Other loans for higher education and housing attract substantially lower interest rates, and all loan products score an unprecedented 100% on the Transparency Index. The allegation that Grameen charges interest rates of up to 200% is wrong, defamatory and deeply irresponsible – yet the film repeatedly shows individuals said to be suffering from extortionate rates.

Jobra interview

The film seeks to portray Grameen Bank and Professor Yunus in a damaging light by way of interviews with individuals in Bangladesh, claiming that Professor Yunus made promises to them that were not kept, or that they have suffered in other ways at the hands of Grameen Bank due to high interest rates. The alleged suffering due to high interest rates is, as stated above, false. The film presents no real evidence to substantiate the other claims, and Professor Yunus refutes any claims made concerning him. Grameen Bank also denies such claims.

This element of the film is based on filmed interviews with individuals in Bangladesh, who are identified in the film and accompanied by commentary purporting to explain and clarify what it being said in Bangla by the interviewees. From our enquiries to date, it is evident that at least some of these interviews are not as represented in the film. For example, Mr. Heinemann claims to have interviewed the daughter of Professor Yunus’s original borrower, and, in the voiceover, claims that the original borrower died in deep poverty. An independent filmmaker, Ms. Gayle Ferraro, travelled to the place of the interview and found the person he interviewed. As can be seen from her film, it turns out that the person Mr. Heinemann interviewed was not in fact who he claimed. In addition, Ms. Ferraro found that the woman who was the actual borrower described in Mr. Heinemann’s film was alive and well, and confirmed the true story of how she had been helped by Professor Yunus. Ms. Ferraro’s film shows that this part of Mr. Heinemann’s film is false.

Conclusion and proposed next step

We believe that the false allegations made by Mr. Heinemann are so serious and damaging to Prof. Yunus and Grameen Bank that there is a need for substantial correction, to redress the harm inflicted upon Grameen Bank. Furthermore, the errors already identified bring into question whether there is any factual basis for other allegations made in the film.

Even though Grameen Bank may, due to the publication of the above mentioned false and defamatory statements, have a legal claim against NRK, the Bank does not desire to engage in a legal battle against NRK – at least if it’s possible to redress harm by other means. I should therefore be grateful to receive your urgent response as to what measures NRK could take to correct the false statements made in the film and to rectify some of the harm inflicted upon Grameen Bank. I can confirm that Grameen Bank is willing to engage with you constructively in dealing with this; please do not hesitate to contact me to move this process forward.

I would like to emphasize that it is not Grameen Bank’s or Professor Yunus’s intention to stifle debate on microfinance – indeed, the Bank, Prof. Yunus and Grameen Foundation all welcome healthy, balanced debate on the issues – but deliberate and repeated false and defamatory statements and unfounded attacks with intent to inflict harm and damage do not further that debate: they distort it. They feed sensationalism and confusion, and they damage the progress that they and all responsible microfinance institutions have made in helping millions of the world’s poorest citizens lift themselves from poverty. Some of the wider ramifications of this discussion are not for this letter, but are expressed in a recent article by Professor Yunus in the New York Times, which can be found here.

You may not be aware that Grameen Bank is 95% owned by more than 8 million borrowers and members of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. About 4% is owned by the Government of Bangladesh. The borrowers and members of the Grameen bank are 97% women, who come from the poorest sectors of Bangladesh. To these people, Grameen Bank is a vital resource that enables them to improve the lives of themselves and their families. Attacks upon Grameen Bank directly harm the interests of these people; it is on their behalf in particular that I write to explain the extent of the untrue and defamatory content of Mr. Heinemann’s film.

The letter above fails to capture all of the distortions and lies in the documentary. For example, anyone familiar with both Bengali and English can easily identify multiple cases of the documentary’s translations being highly slanted toward making every accusation against Professor Yunus appear stronger; some translations are simply wrong. The NRK’s response to this letter, which can be found here, shows that their main defense of the documentary is that Professor Yunus’ decision to not be interviewed by the documentarian, despite his well-known biases against microfinance, justified all of the shortcomings of the film.

The fact that allies of the Prime Minister are citing this almost 13-year-old, discredited film points to the hollowness of their cases against Professor Yunus, which a growing number of people inside Bangladesh and beyond are seeing more clearly than ever.

Sadly, the global human rights community has many issues to address, and more than a few in Bangladesh. For example, outrage has been growing about the scandalous conviction of human rights defenders Adilur Rahman Khan and ASM Nasiruddin Elan, leaders of the respected Bangladeshi human rights organization Odhikar.

Now, Amnesty International’s Secretary General has issued a scathing press release about how the Bangladeshi government has “weaponized” labor law to harass Professor Muhammad Yunus.

The statement says, “Amnesty International believes that initiating criminal proceedings against Mohammad 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.”

Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, added: “Mohammad Yunus’ case is emblematic of the beleaguered state of human rights in Bangladesh, where the authorities have eroded freedoms and bulldozed critics into submission. The abuse of laws and misuse of the justice system to settle vendettas is inconsistent and incompatible with international human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a state party.”

No amount of photos of the Prime Minister speaking briefly with other global leaders can distract from her regime’s deplorable record on human rights, democracy, and freedom of the press.

On September 13, the trial of Professor Yunus and three other Grameen Telecom (GTC) board members will resume. It will be telling whether and how the court pursues the illegal tampering of evidence that the government committed while building a case against these uncompensated, volunteer directors of Grameen Telecom that emerged in the last session through the diligent cross-examination by GTC’s legal team.

In the meantime, Grameen Telecom released a detailed response (or “rejoinder”) to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement on its website, which was published only in English. One of the many important points in this response is that GTC was actually more generous to its employees than the law required in many respects. A Bengali language version of the response can be found here.

A number of well-researched articles have been published about Professor Yunus’ persecution recently, including this Al Jazeera article and this one in the Daily Star. See also this passionate defense of Professor Yunus by Sharmeen Murshid of Brotee, which lasts only five minutes but speaks volumes about how civil society in Bangladesh is viewing this matter. Even if you don’t understand Bengali, you can probably catch the gist of what she is saying. Perhaps we can find a way to translate it into English — it’s powerful.

Below is the English translation of a press release issued after a rally that was held in Dhaka on September 8 in support of Professor Muhammad Yunus by national leaders from civil society, academia, and politics.

Date: September 8, 2023

Press release

Dr. Yunus is the country’s pride; Prominent people call on the government to stop the harassment

On Friday, September 8 in the afternoon the Dhaka Reporters United and the Bangladesh Professional Rights Council held “Judicial Harassment and a Discussion on Muhammad Yunus.”

In the meeting, President of Public Rights Council Nurul Haque Noor said, “As a person from a remote area, I have seen that many poor children of my village have got the opportunity of higher education because of Grameen Bank’s education loan, the people of the village have got the benefit of mobile. He made significant contributions to the country including women empowerment. But sad, a respectable person like him is being harassed by the government. Dr. Yunus is being called a usurer; in our modern banking system, people are charged some interest normally. As the talented do not come forward in politics, the bad people are in in charge of the state, occupying an important place. So the youth should come forward in politics to change the country.”

Referring to the tastelessness of editors and teachers from Dhaka University speaking against Dr. Yunus for the benefit of the government, Noor said, “We all have to be vocal about the judicial harassment of Dr. Yunus. Otherwise Yunus today, me tomorrow, all of you may have this same fate.”

Bangladesh Welfare Party Chairman Major General Syed Muhammad Ibrahim said, “Dr. Muhammad Yunus is a victim of personal outrage. I request the government to stop harassing Dr. Yunus.”

Advocate Subrata Chowdhury, General Secretary of the Gano Forum, and a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court, said, “The judicial league is now being created to control the judicial system of the country. The people of the country will have to burn a lot of wood to fix the mismanagement in which Sheikh Hasina is leaving the country.”

Referring to the 700 articles by anonymous authors praising the government, Shahidul Alam said it is our plight. Dr. Muhammad Yunus is a respected person all over the world. If you go outside the country, you can understand how respected he is in the international arena. I protest against his harassment. I always respect him.

Barrister Kaiser Kamal, legal affairs secretary of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, said, “Just like Begum Khaled Zia and Tariq Rahman, Dr. Muhammad Yunus has admitted to judicial harassment. Everyone should stand against it.”

Sharmin Murshid, executive director of Brati, said, “There is no objection to being a usurer like Dr. Yunus. It is good to be a usurer like Dr. Yunus, as Dr. Yunus has played a role in changing society through the concept of social business and eliminating poverty through small loans.”

Political scientist Nurul Amin Bepari, the president of the alternative party, said that what the government is doing to Dr. Yunus is unfair. It has been doing to the opposition for the last 14 years. The discussion meeting was chaired by Zafar Mahmud, convener of the Professional Rights Council, and the following leaders spoke: member secretary Md. Nizam Uddin, General Secretary of Public Rights Council, Muhammad Rashed Khan, Senior Leader of Professional Rights Council, Advocate Khalid Hossain, Mr. S. Alam, Mr. Tanveer Yusuf, Journalist Roknuzzaman, and Monirul Mawla.