DHAKA — Former advisers of Bangladesh’s post-August interim government are now refusing to take responsibility for several controversial decisions made during the 18-month rule of Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
Some of them are blaming Yunus and a small group of powerful advisers. Others have said they wanted to resign at the time, but could not do so for different reasons.
Their statements have raised a serious question: who actually governed Bangladesh during one of the most unstable political periods in its recent history?
The question has become more urgent because of several major events. These include the demolition of the Bangabandhu Memorial Museum at Dhanmondi 32 and the signing of a U.S.-Bangladesh reciprocal trade agreement only three days before the February 12 national election.
Former advisers are now giving different accounts of how those decisions were made. Some say the decisions were not taken through the formal advisory council. Some say they were not invited to the discussions. Some say they objected, but their objections were ignored. Others have admitted that an informal “kitchen cabinet” existed inside the interim government.
The timing of these statements is important. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, now in power, is trying to blame the outgoing interim government for the disputed trade deal with the United States. But several former advisers of that same interim government say they were not part of the process.
This has created a deeper question. If the decisions were made in the name of the Yunus administration, who should be held responsible?
Former foreign affairs adviser Md. Touhid Hossain has said he thought about resigning three times. Former adviser M Sakhawat Hossain has said major decisions were not made in the formal cabinet or advisory council. Former law adviser Asif Nazrul has said he was not called into discussions on agreements with the United States.
Former fisheries and livestock adviser Farida Akhter has said she opposed parts of the trade agreement, but could not stop it. National Citizen Party spokesperson and former adviser Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan has said a “kitchen cabinet” existed inside the interim government, but he was not part of it.
Together, these statements point to a troubling picture. Was Bangladesh governed through an accountable advisory council? Or was it run by a small, unelected and secretive circle around Yunus?
U.S.-Bangladesh Trade Deal at the Center of the Dispute
The latest controversy centers on the U.S.-Bangladesh reciprocal trade agreement. It was signed on February 9, only three days before the national election.
At the time, the White House said the agreement would give exporters from both countries “unprecedented access” to each other’s markets.
But critics say the agreement placed wide obligations on Bangladesh. Under the deal, Bangladesh agreed to follow specific tariff rules for U.S. goods. It also agreed not to impose quotas on U.S.-origin imports unless otherwise agreed. In some sectors, Bangladesh would also accept U.S. standards or certification rules.
The agreement also covers digital trade, sanctions enforcement, export controls, defense trade, nuclear-related purchases and Bangladesh’s dealings with non-market economies.
Critics say such a broad agreement should never have been signed days before an election. They say it should have gone through parliamentary scrutiny first.
Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman, who was national security adviser during the interim government, has defended the deal. On March 4, he said the agreement was not rushed. He said talks had started much earlier.
He also claimed that the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami leaderships had been informed before the election and had agreed to the deal.
But Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer Shafiqur Rahman rejected that claim. In a Facebook post on March 6, he said his party had not been consulted on international agreements signed during the interim government.
That denial made the controversy more serious. If Jamaat says it was not consulted, and former advisers also say they were excluded, then who approved the agreement?
Asif Mahmud’s Remarks Add a New Dimension
Yunus regime addviser and National Citizen Party (NCP) spokesperson Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan has added a new layer to the debate.
Speaking at an emergency press conference at the party’s temporary central office in Bangla Motor on May 26, he said a “kitchen cabinet” existed inside the interim government. But he said he was not part of it.
When he was asked directly whether he was a member of that group, he said the kitchen cabinet existed, but he was not included.
He also accused the BNP of using the interim government as a shield. According to him, the BNP is trying to avoid responsibility for the U.S. trade agreement.
“We believe that the BNP was behind this agreement three days before the parliamentary election,” he said.
He also alleged that the BNP was using its current foreign minister, Khalilur Rahman, to shift the blame onto the interim government.
His remarks matter because NCP emerged as a “King’s Party” from the political environment created during the interim period. Now its own spokesperson is distancing the party from the disputed deal.
This means the issue is no longer limited to criticism from Awami League supporters or opponents of the Yunus administration. It has become a question of accountability among the political forces that rose after August.
Touhid Hossain Says a Seven-Member Circle Made Decisions
Former foreign affairs adviser Md. Touhid Hossain has made one of the strongest allegations.
In an interview with Jamuna Television on May 25, he said major decisions of the interim government were effectively controlled by a seven-member “kitchen cabinet.” He said this informal circle met every Tuesday.
Touhid said he did not initially know about such a structured informal group. But he said its influence was discussed inside the government.
He also said several advisers interfered with his ministry. He thought about resigning three times. But he was persuaded to stay because his resignation would create “serious discomfort” for the government.
On the U.S.-Bangladesh trade agreement, Touhid tried to distance the foreign ministry from the process. He said the issue was handled by the commerce ministry and the national security adviser, Khalilur Rahman.
But that explanation raises more questions. A long-term trade agreement with the United States has clear diplomatic consequences. If the foreign affairs adviser was not properly involved, did the government follow normal institutional procedures?
Sakhawat Hossain Says Major Decisions Were Made Outside the Council
Former adviser M Sakhawat Hossain has also described a process of exclusion.
In an interview after leaving office, he said major decisions were not taken in the formal cabinet or advisory council.
“Unfortunately, major decisions were not taken in the cabinet. They were discussed outside,” he said.
When asked about the “kitchen cabinet,” Sakhawat said he did not know who belonged to it. But he strongly denied being part of it.
“I want to say unequivocally, I was not there,” he said.
Sakhawat also said he thought about resigning within seven or eight days of joining the interim administration. But Yunus asked him to stay because such an early resignation would send the wrong message.
His comments on law and order, arms looting, foreign pressure and policymaking have strengthened the perception that the formal structure of the interim government was not the real center of power.
Asif Nazrul Says He Was Not Called on U.S. Agreements
Former law adviser Asif Nazrul has also denied involvement in the U.S. agreement process.
In remarks reported after a BBC Bangla interview, he said he was not called when Bangladesh signed agreements with the United States. He said those matters were not treated as part of his area.
“I was not called when Bangladesh signed agreements with the United States,” he said.
According to him, Yunus sat with a few advisers on economic, banking and National Board of Revenue issues.
This statement raises serious concerns about legal review. How could such an agreement be signed without full legal scrutiny from the law ministry?
International agreements often affect trade, investment, regulatory power, sanctions cooperation and sovereign policy space. They require careful legal review. If the law adviser was not included, the public has reason to ask whether the deal was signed without proper legal examination.
Farida Akhter Says She Objected but Could Not Stop It
Former fisheries and livestock adviser Farida Akhter has given a different but important account.
She has said the interim government discussed the trade agreement with the BNP and Jamaat. She has also said the agreement could be amended or canceled.
At a discussion organized by Nayakrishi Andolon and UBINIG at the National Press Club on May 12, she said the agreement should be placed before parliament. She said it should be implemented only with public consent.
“Everyone should demand that this agreement be presented in parliament,” she said.
At the same time, Farida said she opposed parts of the agreement from inside the government. She was especially concerned about cheap meat, poultry and other animal products from the United States entering Bangladesh.
She warned that such imports could harm local farmers and livestock producers. She also raised health concerns.
Her account exposes a major contradiction inside the interim government. Some advisers now say they objected. But the decisions still went ahead.
Economists have also criticized the agreement.
Khondaker Golam Moazzem, research director at the Centre for Policy Dialogue, called the deal “highly discriminatory.” He said he was “stunned and bewildered” that any government could enter into such an agreement.
Economist Anu Muhammad also criticized the deal. He was active in the movement that helped bring down the Awami League government and led to the Yunus-led interim administration.
He said the agreement went against Bangladesh’s interests. He also said it appeared to follow a “United States first” approach. In his view, Bangladesh was pushed into a dangerous position during the interim period.
Political Exclusion and the Wider Context
The former advisers’ statements cannot be separated from the wider political context.
The Awami League, Bangladesh’s oldest major political party and the party that led the independence movement, could not participate in the February 12 election. The interim government banned the party’s activities. The Election Commission also suspended its registration.
As a result, the Awami League’s boat symbol was absent from the ballot. The BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami became the main political forces in the election.
The BNP won a sweeping victory. Jamaat and its allies secured 77 seats.
Human Rights Watch has said the Yunus-led interim government failed to maintain law and order. It also said the government failed to fully deliver promised human rights reforms.
The rights group said thousands of perceived political opponents were arbitrarily detained. It said the Awami League was banned. It also said hundreds of Awami League leaders, activists and supporters were held in murder cases without trial. Many were repeatedly denied bail.
This wider context gives the former advisers’ statements a deeper meaning.
The question is not only who signed a trade agreement. It is not only who attended a weekly meeting. The real question is whether Bangladesh’s political transition was run through transparent institutions or through informal power centers, political exclusion, repression and blame-shifting.
The recent statements by former advisers show that the post-August political order is now cracking under its own contradictions.
Those who once served inside the interim government now say they were not consulted. They say they were not included. They say they were not responsible. Some say they were not powerful enough to stop controversial decisions.
That may help protect their personal reputations. But it does not answer the national question.
- When state institutions were weakened, who governed Bangladesh?
- When a major political party was kept out of the election, who made that decision?
- When a historic national memorial was destroyed, who failed to protect it?
- When a long-term international agreement was signed three days before the election, who approved it?
These questions remain unanswered.
The current BNP government now faces a serious test. It criticizes the interim government’s opaque decision-making. But at the same time, it keeps the benefits of some of those disputed decisions.
This is not a sustainable position.
If the BNP government believes the U.S.-Bangladesh agreement serves the national interest, it should explain that clearly before parliament.
If it believes the agreement harms Bangladesh’s sovereignty, food security, local producers or policy independence, it should reopen negotiations or use the available exit provisions.
Either way, the issue should not remain inside another closed room.
The same applies to political arrests, the exclusion of the Awami League, the destruction of Dhanmondi 32 and the wider question of state accountability.
A government that claims to restore democracy cannot build legitimacy by avoiding public review. It cannot blame the interim government when convenient and quietly preserve its disputed decisions when useful.
Until these questions are answered through public disclosure, parliamentary debate and credible investigation, the legacy of the Yunus-led interim administration will remain deeply contested.
It will not be contested only by its opponents. It will also be contested by those who once served inside it.
