Why Grameen Bank Can’t Take Over Other Grameen Companies

Posted on by Protect Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus

The case, if it can be called that, for taking over Grameen Kalyan, Grameen Telecom, and six other Grameen companies rests on the mistaken claim that Grameen Bank can nominate the chairmen and managing directors of these organizations. (And even if that were true, to do so by force is contrary to the rule of law.)

But the reality is that Grameen Bank does not have this power. It is important to understand why this is the case. The reasons why it can’t do this were explained concisely in an excellent analysis published earlier this week by United News of Bangladesh. Highlights of the article, which asserts that this takeover represents “an effort to weaponize Dr Yunus’ most prized achievement, Grameen Bank, against him,” appear below:

Nazmul Islam, managing director of Grameen Telecom, revealed that the intruders [who invaded their offices on February 12], claiming [an] association with Grameen Bank, cited a 1995 Act to justify their actions, suggesting Grameen Bank had the authority to change Grameen Kalyan’s leadership.

However, Nazmul Islam clarified that this claim was erroneous, as the relevant rule was amended in 2009 and Grameen Kalyan operates independently…

The legal issues were then more clearly explained in a second press conference held by Barrister Abdullah Al Mamun, legal advisor to Grameen Telecom….

He said according to articles of association drawn up in 1995 and 1996, Grameen Bank had the authority to nominate, not appoint — a key difference — three directors to the board of Grameen Telecom and two to the board of Grameen Kalyan. They could also nominate the chairman.

Using muscle power, Grameen Bank was now apparently forcefully appointing the chairman of the two entities, but this was unlawful, Barrister Mamun said.

“Their nominations have to be accepted in a meeting by the two entities themselves. There is no scope for them to force their choice and seat them as the chair or director,” he said. “Besides, after the changes in 2009, the articles of association were changed and notified to the Joint Stock Registrar of Companies.”

As this conflict plays out, we are going to find out soon whether the rule of law has survived in any noticeable form in today’s Bangladesh.

Coverage and Condemnation of the Illegal Occupation of Eight Grameen Companies Grow

Posted on by Protect Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus

Some of us in the Protect Yunus Campaign hoped that in the aftermath of the Prime Minister’s reelection, however disputed and fraudulent it was, she would take the high road and scuttle the meritless cases and investigations of Professor Yunus (and ideally also of the many others she has been persecuting), or perhaps facilitate a presidential pardon. It appears that such optimism was unwarranted.

On February 12, thugs including people claiming to be retired military officers invaded the Telecom Building and have, ever since, been occupying the offices of eight leading Grameen companies that Professor Yunus established and that have been doing breakthrough work in health care for the poor, renewable energy, and other important areas. Six of those organizations have received letters from Grameen Bank asserting that their chairmen and managing directors are being removed and replaced, despite there being no legal basis for such actions. Each day this week, the invaders lock the doors when they leave and don’t allow any of the legitimate employees of the companies back into their offices until they arrive and unlock the doors. When lawyers attempted to notify local police of this illegal invasion and occupation, the police would not take any action or even note down the complaint. Later they “investigated” and, incredibly, found nothing amiss!

There were some initial press reports on the invasion and occupation. When Professor Yunus and other leaders of these companies tried to hold a press conference on Thursday, February 15, they were initially unable to do so because some women were blocking the entrance to the Telecom building. (Later, when asked, the women admitted they had no idea why they were there beyond having been asked by some local political leaders to do their bidding.) The press conference ultimately went forward. It has led to more local and international press coverage, including an AFP article carried in Barrons and The Hindu, and on the BBC World News, where reporters lauded Professor Yunus’ global leadership, discussed the invasion, and referred to the “judicial harassment” Professor Yunus has been facing. More international coverage and condemnation is expected.

The spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary General addressed this at a press conference on February 15 when he said, responding to a question about the illegal occupation of 8 Grameen companies, “I’d have to reiterate that Mr. Yunus has been very much a valued partner of the United Nations through the years.  He’s been an advocate for us both in official and unofficial capacity and supporting a number of initiatives surrounding the Millennium Development Goals, the Sustainable Development Goals, and our development work in general.  We are very concerned about the reports that we have seen coming out of Bangladesh on issues related to him.” 

The U.S. State Department also weighed in. 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. In a statement on Tuesday, spokesman Matthew Miller expressed concern about the unusually fast-paced legal actions against Yunus, including the frequent involvement of the Anti-Corruption Commission in many cases. He warned that harassment of such a prominent figure could ‘damage Bangladesh’s reputation’ and ‘hinder foreign investment.'”

Bangladeshis at home and abroad are expressing shock and disgust about this latest development, with any remaining sympathy for the Prime Minister’s position evaporating precipitously. Fears about the safety and freedom of Grameen leaders including Professor Yunus is growing, and also about the independence of eight organizations that have been working for decades to improve living conditions in Bangladesh and address climate change using innovative means that have been admired and copied around the world.

Bangladeshi Experts Respond to Two Common Government Critiques of the Calls for Justice for Prof. Yunus

Posted on by Protect Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus

Two Mondays ago, 12 U.S. Senators from both major political parties called for justice for Professor Muhammad Yunus in a strongly worded letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Last Monday, 247 global leaders including 127 Nobel laureates wrote their own letter demanding that the persecution stop and proposing a pathway to independently examining the meritless charges against Dr. Yunus.

The responses from the Bangladeshi government have centered on two critiques of the letters.

The first was that the Bangladeshi legal system is independent from politics and is trustworthy, therefore arguing that the “political vendettas” referred to in the Senators’ letter were no factor in the January 1 verdict against Professor Yunus and his three co-defendants.

The second was that the labor law case was brought against Professor Yunus by aggrieved employees of Grameen Telecom, rather than by the government. In that case, the government’s only role was to let the judicial process take its course between two private parties.

Let us examine these in turn, drawing not on the analysis of foreigners, but rather on those of respected experts in Bangladesh.

On the first point, let’s listen to Professor Rehman Sobhan, one of the leading public intellectuals in Bangladesh’s history, the founder of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, and the former Director General of the Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies. He wrote a compelling analysis of the legal harassment of Professor Yunus in the Dhaka Tribune and the Daily Star, which was also picked up in India.

Titled “For Whom the Bell Tolls?”, it demolishes the idea that the labor law case against Professor Yunus has any merit. He cites the degradation of the state’s competence and independence under the current Prime Minister as the only reason the case could have proceeded so far. He writes bitingly, “The [labor law] case of Professor Yunus is symptomatic of this erosion in the credibility of our institutions [in Bangladesh]. The triviality and narrowness of the case against Yunus would not have made it to first base in any well-functioning judicial system.” Please read his depressing yet highly cogent critique of the argument that the conviction is trustworthy because of the supposed independence and competence of the Bangladeshi legal system.

Now let us turn to the idea that the litigants in the labor law case are Grameen Telecom’s employees and Grameen Telecom’s 4 convicted board members. (We will ignore for the moment that even if it were true that the employees were a party to the case, the defendant should be the company itself–not 4 of its board members–and that it should be a civil rather than criminal case, according to Bangladeshi law.) In response to the claim that the employees brought the case, Shayan S. Khan, the editor of the venerable Dhaka Courier—a highly respected, 40-year-old weekly newsmagazine in Bangladesh—updated an earlier article and wrote forcefully that the true litigants were the Bangladesh government on the one hand, and Grameen Telecom and its board members on the other.

In his article, titled “So Who Filed the Case Against Professor Yunus?”, he concludes the following after his painstakingly researched and reported analysis: “Yet, as far as the workers’ involvement in the government’s case goes, we have seen enough to conclude that not only did they not file the case, but they hardly played any part in it at all.”

But one thing is sure: the government will continue to repeat these debunked claims in the days ahead, just as they have argued that some unnamed lobbying firm spent $2 million to place a pro-Yunus ad in the Washington Post last March (a claim that was proven false here).

Yet with people like Professor Sobhan and Shayan Khan reporting the truth, we at the Protect Yunus Campaign are confident that the Bangladeshi people will see through these lies and understand what is actually happening: a travesty of justice.