Experts Question Port Deals' Transparency and Haste

Two prominent governance and economic-policy experts, Debapriya Bhattacharya of CPD and Iftekharuzzaman of TIB, have raised serious concerns regarding the speed, lack of transparency, and process behind the recent long-term leasing of major terminals at Chattogram Port to foreign operators.

The primary criticism centers on the unusually rapid pace of the deals, noting that negotiations and signing were completed within two weeks (between November 7-8 and November 17). This speed and the alleged secrecy (non-disclosure agreements) have created doubts that "speed eclipsed scrutiny."

The interim government signed two agreements on November 17. Laldia Container Terminal (Chattogram): Handed to APM Terminals (part of AP Moller-Maersk) for 30 years to design, build, and operate.

Pangaon Inland Container Terminal (near Dhaka): Handed to MEDLOG (Switzerland's inland-logistics specialist) for 22 years to manage and run.

Demand for Transparency: Both experts stressed that while foreign investment is necessary for modernizing the port, it must be secured through a transparent, competitive, and accountable process that clearly protects national interests.

CPD's Debapriya Bhattacharya's Stance: Stated the extensive lack of transparency creates scope for doubts over the government's goals and could become a "negative precedent" for future foreign investment and argued that rushing the investment within 13 days under non-disclosure agreements is unnecessary.

Called for the cancellation of all discriminatory agreements, referencing a previous undisclosed DP World contract as well and believes the process has created a "burden" for the next government.

TIB's Iftekharuzzaman's Stance: Questioned the extent to which public interests were considered and the agreements' contribution to developing local skills. Urged the government to disclose "all information, conditions, and procedures" of the new terminal agreements to assure the public how national interests were protected.

Highlighted that the pace contradicted the projected 62 days required for ten major steps, creating a "reasonable basis for questioning the entire process."

Asked for clarification on the economic roadmap, cost-benefit analysis, and the rationale for adopting an "exceptional process" for Laldia versus a competitive one for Pangaon.