The ongoing strike at Chattogram port over the interim government’s decision to hand over the New Mooring Container Terminal (NCT) to a foreign operator has opened a Pandora’s box of questions. While we are not opposed to foreign investment aimed at improving port efficiency, management, and overall trade logistics, any deal involving a strategically vital national asset like the country’s principal seaport must be fully transparent. The proposed agreement with UAE-based DP World falls short on that count.
Little information is available regarding the terms of the proposal or the status of its evaluation, even though sources at the Chittagong Port Authority (CPA) indicate that the government is preparing to sign the deal ahead of the election. But why the rush to conclude such a consequential agreement when fewer than 10 days remain before we welcome a new government?
Reportedly, the deal originated during the tenure of the previous Awami League government when an MoU was signed with DP World. After assuming office following the fall of the AL government, the interim administration revived the proposal. However, the contract was not awarded through a standard public bidding process. In March last year, a civil society organisation challenged the decision by filing a writ petition with the High Court. Although the court delivered a dissenting verdict on December 3, 2025, the Supreme Court, on January 29, rejected the petition, clearing the way for the government to move forward with the deal. The apex court noted that the awarding process complied with the 2017 Procurement Policy, which allows for direct selection in certain cases, and was consistent with the MoU signed during the AL era.
However, yesterday, a fresh petition was placed before a Supreme Court chamber judge seeking an order of status quo on the government’s move to award the contract to DP World. The petitioner's lawyer told The Daily Star that with the national parliamentary election imminent, executing the contract at such a critical juncture amounts to “executive high‑handedness, arbitrariness, and malafide exercise of power.” We, too, believe that such decisions should rest with an elected government operating under a functional parliament, where opposition voices can scrutinise long-term strategic agreements involving ports, energy, and other critical infrastructure. A non-political interim government, formed in the wake of a popular uprising, is better suited to pursuing reforms that have emerged from broad and meaningful stakeholder consultations. It remains unclear why, in its final days, the government is pushing through such high-value projects and deals—often without adequate consultation—that risk constraining the choices of the incoming elected administration.
Besides, CPA’s decision to transfer four protesting employees to the Pangaon Inland Container Terminal raises questions. Why was punitive action the authorities’ first response? Should they not instead have initiated dialogue with the protesters and addressed their concerns regarding the agreement? According to the protesters, leasing out the NCT would result in a significant share of the port’s earnings being transferred abroad. Had the interim government ensured transparency and made the contract terms public, the strike now paralysing the port might well have been avoided. The government’s priority right now should not be taking steps that could trigger unrest; only the election should be its main priority.
