The interim government led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus has officially signed agreements handing over the operation of two major Bangladeshi ports to foreign companies, ending months of speculation. The signing ceremony was held on Monday at the InterContinental Hotel in Dhaka.
Government officials, however, are facing rising criticism over what many describe as a “secretive process” behind these long-term concessions.
Two Key Ports Awarded to Foreign Firms
Under the agreements, Pangaon Inland Container Terminal near Dhaka and the Laldia Container Terminal in Chattogram will be operated by two foreign logistics companies for extended periods.
Pangaon Terminal to Be Operated by Medlog for 22 Years
Switzerland-based logistics firm Medlog will operate the Pangaon Inland Container Terminal for 22 years under a concession agreement signed between the company’s Bangladesh subsidiary and the Chittagong Port Authority (CPA).
CPA Chairman Rear Admiral S. M. Moniruzzaman and Medlog Bangladesh Managing Director A.T.M. Anisul Millat signed on behalf of their respective organizations.
Located along the Buriganga River near the Dhaka–Mawa–Bhanga Expressway, the terminal is expected by some stakeholders to strengthen domestic cargo distribution networks.
Laldia Container Terminal Awarded to APM Terminals for 30 Years
On the same day, a 30-year concession was finalized between CPA and APM Terminals, a Denmark-based global port operator.
CPA handed over the agreement letter to APM Terminals and its local partner, QNS Container Services.
During the event, CPA Chairman Rear Admiral Moniruzzaman stated, “The time is now.”
Opposition and Civil Society Criticisms
Concerns Over Transparency, Sovereignty, and Economic Impact
Several groups—including economists, logistics experts, civil society representatives, and opposition voices—have sharply criticized the move. They have highlighted a series of concerns summarized below.
1. Lack of Transparency in Decision-Making
Critics argue that handing over strategically vital ports for decades required broader public discussion, parliamentary oversight, and independent expert review.
They allege that the agreements were signed “quietly,” without public disclosure of terms, prompting concerns over governance.
2. National Security Risks
Some security analysts warn that foreign control of port operations could affect:
- strategic supply routes,
- military-logistics planning,
- and oversight of international trade flows.
They argue that long-term control could influence Bangladesh’s policy autonomy in the future.
3. Increased Economic Dependence
According to economists in the opposing camp, concessions spanning 22–30 years may deepen Bangladesh’s dependency on foreign infrastructure operators.
They fear that transferring operational responsibilities abroad could hinder the development of domestic expertise and port-management capacity.
4. Questions Over Revenue and Financial Terms
Economists have raised questions about:
- how much revenue Bangladesh will ultimately receive,
- whether the financial terms favor the operators,
- and whether port fees may rise under private foreign management.
Some point to international examples where profit repatriation by large foreign operators reduced local economic gains.
5. Exclusion of Domestic Companies
Local logistics companies argue they were sidelined despite years of advocating for government support to build domestic capacity.
They claim that the decision will disadvantage local industry and potentially shrink national market share.
6. Lack of Public Consultation
Civil society groups insist that a national asset of this magnitude cannot be handed over without stakeholder engagement.
They argue that no public hearings, policy dialogues, or consultations were conducted.
7. Political Legitimacy Controversies
A section of critics claims that the interim government itself lacks electoral legitimacy.
They contend that long-term decisions affecting national strategic assets should not be made by an administration whose mandate is questioned by political opponents.
