Guest column : Voice of Calcutta
Naem Nizam
Former Chief Adviser of Bangladesh’s interim government, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, may have stepped down from office, but the controversy surrounding his rule refuses to fade. On the contrary, new political turbulence has emerged following recent interviews given by President Mohammed Shahabuddin, who has openly accused the Yunus-led interim administration of violating the Constitution and undermining the authority of the presidency.
In an interview published by a national daily, the President alleged that not only Dr. Yunus but also several of his advisers were involved in serious irregularities, administrative misconduct, and the deliberate creation of mob rule. The interview triggered widespread political debate and demands for legal action against Yunus and his associates for constitutional violations.
Political analysts argue that the President’s statements go far beyond routine administrative dissatisfaction. They raise fundamental questions about the constitutional legitimacy and functioning of the interim government. According to the President, the Yunus administration systematically attempted to neutralize the constitutional role of the Head of State.
He claimed that for nearly 18 months he was treated as a virtual prisoner—barred from foreign travel, excluded from state ceremonies, and subjected to deliberate humiliation, including the removal of his official portrait. There were even attempts, he suggested, to occupy the presidential residence. Only after Yunus left office did the President feel free to speak openly.
The President further alleged that constitutional procedures were ignored in the promulgation of ordinances after the dissolution of Parliament. By law, such ordinances must be issued through the President with proper consultation. However, several ordinances were reportedly enacted without his formal approval or due process—setting what he described as a dangerous and unprecedented precedent. Even major agreements and procurement deals with the United States were concluded without informing him.
He said he was kept “in the dark” about state affairs. He was prevented from hosting national day programs and even from attending Eid prayers at the National Eidgah. His personal press wing was dismantled. These actions, analysts believe, reflect a conscious attempt to curtail the constitutional authority of the President—something no Chief Adviser is empowered to do.
The gravest allegation concerns attempts to force the President to resign. The President hinted that certain quarters were preparing alternative arrangements for his post. Since the Constitution clearly defines the procedure for removing a President, any effort to bypass that process through political or administrative pressure constitutes a direct assault on constitutional order. A government that destabilizes the office of the Head of State inevitably undermines its own legitimacy.
Another serious accusation involves pressure to declare a state of emergency. In South Asian political history, emergency rule has often served as a tool for centralizing power. If such pressure indeed came from within the interim administration, it signals an alarming tendency toward authoritarian consolidation. The President stated that he refused to comply.
The political implications of these allegations are profound. Many observers now argue that although Dr. Yunus enjoyed international prestige, his conduct in office reflected a shift toward intolerance and authoritarian control. His interim government, they say, exercised power beyond constitutional limits—prompting growing calls for accountability and legal proceedings.
Writer Taslima Nasrin echoed these sentiments on social media, stating that Dr. Yunus and others like him should be imprisoned. She questioned why no cases had been filed against him for charges ranging from treason and distortion of Liberation War history to alleged collusion with Pakistan and threats concerning regional integrity.
For many citizens, Yunus’s 18-month rule has come to symbolize a “state of mob governance.” During this period, the rule of law appeared to collapse. Mob violence, lynching, land grabbing, arson, and killings reportedly increased with little accountability. Human rights organizations noted a sharp rise in mob-related violence between 2024 and 2026.
According to one Dhaka daily, three of Yunus’s advisers deliberately nurtured mob forces to prolong their grip on power. Ultimately, their strategy failed, and they were forced to relinquish authority—bringing an end to what critics now call the “Yunus mob era.”
In August 2024, a three-day gap between the announcement of Yunus’s appointment (August 5) and his formal assumption of office (August 8) left Bangladesh effectively without a government. This administrative vacuum contributed to widespread lawlessness, including looting, arson, and violent attacks. Many believe the interim leadership bears responsibility for this breakdown in order.
Economically, Yunus’s policies also drew sharp criticism. Decisions regarding tax exemptions, tax holidays, and ownership restructuring of Grameen Bank and affiliated institutions were widely perceived as conflicts of interest. Shortly after assuming power, Yunus allegedly ensured financial privileges for institutions linked to him—an act many see as ethically indefensible.
Reports further claim that he acquired more than twenty commercial licenses in the names of his own companies, ranging from manpower export to universities—an unprecedented move for a sitting head of an interim government.
Law and order deteriorated throughout his tenure. Attacks on police stations, looting of weapons, violence against political activists, and assaults on minority communities drew both domestic and international concern. Journalists, writers, artists, teachers, and intellectuals faced harassment and mass legal cases. Freedom of expression came under sustained pressure.
Dr. Yunus’s governance style, critics argue, was marked by arbitrariness. In 18 months, he failed to deliver any exemplary achievement in restoring stability or democratic norms. Instead, his administration suspended major political forces through executive orders and kept them outside the electoral process, plunging Bangladesh into prolonged political uncertainty.
Although the Yunus chapter has formally ended, the controversy has not. A Nobel laureate who rose to power promising reform instead left behind a legacy of constitutional disruption, political intolerance, and weakened state institutions.
History may ultimately record the Yunus era as one of the most controversial chapters in Bangladesh’s political journey—an experiment that damaged constitutional balance and replaced governance with mob rule.
