Why port terminals being handed over to foreign companies

It was promised that reforms would take place—reforms that would prioritise the country, its people, democratic institutions and the judiciary; reforms that would ensure no future autocrat could rise again, that would bring balance to power, make the police humane, and make the law, justice and administration citizen-friendly, thereby establishing social justice.

But as the interim government ages, the discussion on reforms has become increasingly complex. The debate now centres almost entirely on the July Charter. Meanwhile, rumours swirl in the air. Mysterious fires have broken out at several key establishments, and there is a strong scent of conspiracy. At the same time, allegations are rising that the government has become a contractor for safeguarding American interests. Previously, during the Trump administration, Bangladesh reportedly signed a secret Non-Disclosure Agreement with the United States to maintain trade privileges. Despite widespread criticism, not a word of that deal has been made public. Now, whispers surround the ports as well. But why? What interest could a neutral interim government possibly have? Whose fear? Why the secrecy behind these long-term deals?

The backbone of Bangladesh’s economic growth lies in its ports—particularly the terminals at Chattogram and Dhaka. These ports are not only the country’s main arteries for goods but also major sources of employment and gateways for international trade. Therefore, ensuring transparency and security in port operations is absolutely essential. Recently, discussions about long-term contracts with foreign companies to manage these terminals have raised deep concerns among informed quarters.

When we speak of a nation’s assets, we usually think of mineral, forest or water resources. But in the modern era, in both financial and geographical terms, ports are among the most vital national assets. For a fast-developing country like Bangladesh, with limited natural resources, ports represent not only trade hubs but also symbols of national pride and sovereignty.

For example, the Chattogram Port handles around 90% of the country’s total imports and exports. Without its proper and transparent management, one can hardly imagine what would happen to the national economy. If control or management of such ports is handed over to unfamiliar foreign entities for decades, how will our national interests be safeguarded?

The government has announced that from December 2025, the management of seven key port terminals—such as Patenga, Matarbari Deep Sea Port and Laldia Container Terminal—will be given to foreign companies for 30 years. Yet this decision is shrouded in secrecy. The draft agreements or terms have not been made public at all.

This concern is valid, because transparency and accountability are fundamental pillars of democratic governance. When thousands of dock workers and employees earn their living from these ports, taking such a decision without clarifying their job security or future is unjustified. Have their rights been protected in these contracts? What are the terms? Without disclosure, public trust cannot be earned.

For comparison, in countries like India, the government and port authorities regularly publish information for the media and the public, maintaining transparency that builds trust and cooperation in port management.

It is questionable, both morally and constitutionally, how appropriate it is for an interim government to take such a long-term economic decision lasting 30 years. Such a decision will have profound impacts on the economy and future generations.

History shows that major long-term policies and agreements are typically discussed and approved under elected governments. In countries such as India or Japan, long-term port management deals involve public consultation and accountability.

Bangladesh’s ports are not just economic infrastructures—they are part of the nation’s identity. Handing over these assets to foreign entities through long-term agreements could pose serious threats to domestic control and security. In global geopolitics, such issues quickly become strategic. For instance, Venezuela’s economy and politics suffered gravely after its oil fields were handed over to foreign interests.

If a similar scenario unfolds in Bangladesh, it would not only bring economic loss but also a serious blow to national sovereignty. Recently, the Army Chief remarked that ports, Saint Martin’s Island and the national corridors are symbols of sovereignty, which should be managed by elected governments. But now, as foreign firms take control of port management, public fears are growing—will Saint Martin’s or the corridors follow the same path?

The rights of port workers, who labour daily in these facilities, are being largely overlooked. If these contracts do not guarantee job security and fair conditions for them, the livelihood of a vast section of the working class will be endangered. The lack of public awareness about the deal has already fuelled anxiety and dissatisfaction among workers.

In developed countries, port management strictly protects workers’ rights and regulates wages and benefits under clear legal frameworks. Transparency and worker participation are mandatory. Bangladesh should maintain similar standards.

Transparency is essential for establishing democracy and good governance. The secrecy surrounding port terminal management is deepening public suspicion and discontent. In a democratic state, citizens should be aware of all major government decisions; secrecy of this kind is harmful to the nation.

It is time for the media and civil society to step forward—to participate actively in this process and apply constructive pressure on the government to release the draft agreements and seek public opinion. This would ensure not only transparency but also the protection of workers’ rights.

When a state hands over its strategic infrastructure to foreign control, it ceases to be a mere economic decision—it becomes a geopolitical and security issue. Powerful global players pursue their own interests through such deals, influencing our policies, decisions, and ultimately our independence.

Recent global experiences show that when foreign control increases over key sectors such as ports, power plants, or telecommunications, national sovereignty is endangered. If Bangladesh follows this trend, it would reveal not only the irresponsibility of an unelected government but also a clear disregard for the nation’s long-term interests.

The government must immediately publish the contract drafts, guarantee the rights and security of workers, and make its port management policies transparent. In managing vital national assets, ensuring participation of the public and their elected representatives is the only democratic and sustainable course.

Bangladesh’s ports are not just economic infrastructures—they are symbols of national pride and sovereignty. If their management lacks transparency and accountability, long-term foreign contracts will undermine our economic independence and erode public confidence.

Chiraranjan Sarkar: Columnist