Editorial, News & commercial office:
55/A, H M Siddique Mansion (Level-7), Purana Paltan, Motijhel C/A, Dhaka-1000. Phone: +8802226640056,
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
A major controversy has emerged in Bangladesh’s banking sector over allegations that corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds were used to support campaigning related to a reform referendum, in possible violation of existing banking regulations.
According to sources, the Association of Bankers, Bangladesh (ABB), under direct and indirect instructions from the central bank, provided Tk37 million in financial assistance to three private organisations in connection with the campaign. Of this, approximately Tk25.2 million was reportedly allocated to Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (SHUJAN), Tk10 million to the Students Against Discrimination Foundation, and around Tk2 million to Debate for Democracy.
Central bank officials, commercial bankers and financial experts have raised concerns that the use of CSR funds for political campaigning contravenes established banking policies.
A Bangladesh Bank official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the issue of supporting the referendum was unexpectedly added to the agenda of a bankers’ meeting on 11 January this year. The official described the meeting as “unusual”, noting the presence of Financial Institutions Division Secretary Najma Mobarak, which was said to be unprecedented.
At the meeting, then Governor Dr Ahsan H Mansur reportedly informed attendees of a special agenda item and explained that the secretary had been invited for that purpose. One participant objected, arguing that existing regulations did not permit the regulator to be involved in such activities, leading to tension during the discussion.
The following day, seven ABB members, including its chairman, were summoned and instructed to allocate CSR funds to the three organisations. Another official claimed that objections raised during the meeting were omitted from the official minutes.
Subsequently, at a Bangladesh Bank board meeting on 25 January, a proposal was made to allocate Tk90 million to the Students Foundation, but board members rejected it. However, Tk10 million was eventually approved. An official noted that the foundation was not registered at the time of the directive but obtained registration within 10 days before receiving the funds.
In a later investigation, a Bangladesh Bank team reportedly failed to locate a permanent office for the foundation. Officials said they met representatives at a restaurant, but the organisation was unable to provide adequate documentation. One official described the situation as “highly disorganised”.
Responding to the allegations, Bangladesh Bank spokesperson and Executive Director Arif Hossain Khan said the funds were disbursed under instructions from the interim government to support the referendum process, not specifically to campaign for a “Yes” vote. He added that CSR funds could be used for public welfare.
Under Bangladesh Bank guidelines, 30 percent of CSR funds should be allocated to education, 30 percent to healthcare, 20 percent to environment and climate, with the remainder designated for sports, disaster management, cultural development and support for small entrepreneurs.
ABB Chairman Mashrur Arefin told reporters that bankers had been asked to provide funding in support of the “Yes” campaign. He said they had requested written instructions for formal approval by their respective boards. Initially, Tk200–250 million had been sought, but banks declined to fund the Students Foundation due to its lack of registration and cited limited CSR resources.
He added that, ultimately, Tk25 million was provided to SHUJAN and Tk2 million to Debate for Democracy, with payments made after budget reviews and further instructions from the Chief Adviser’s Office. “Everything was done based on directives. We have to follow the regulator’s advice,” he said.
Former governor Dr Ahsan H Mansur defended the decision, stating that it was taken by the interim government and that all organisations had been encouraged to support the referendum. He maintained that the funds were not used to promote a specific outcome but to assist the referendum process, and argued that the CSR spending served public interest rather than private gain.
