Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shuziburo
If laws have been broken, then the proper mechanisms should be used to bring the lawbreakers to justice. Not what has been going on. Plus, even in Bangladesh, "innocent until proven guilty" applies. Clearly, the media circus has nothing to do with justice.
|
This is the broad chain of events since this whole Yunus affair started:
1. A Norwegian documentary is released in late 2010 on irregularities in GB which brings the issue of misappropriated funds to the attention of the international community as well as Bangladeshi authorities. NORAD then explains that the whole issue has been resolved amicably with Dr. Yunus but it is an embarrassment for the Government as they: a) did not follow up on the irregularities reported in a Bangladesh Bank Audit Report conducted in the late 90s and b) did not, overall, scrutinize the actions of Grameen Bank's since 1983. It is also noteworthy that since this incident, the Embassy formally ended their funding arrangement with GB in 2003; an arrangement that had been so lucrative for GB since 1986, when they first started receiving support from Norway and which by 1997 totaled NOK 392.639 million.
2. Investigation starts by Gov. and Bangladesh Bank (BB)
3. Letter is sent in March 2011 to Dr. Yunus by BB indicating that he had overstayed his legally permitted tenure.
4. After these two issues were raised the Gov. set up a 5-member Inquiry Committee to review the operations of the Bank and they made certain recommendations.
5. Dr. Yunus brings a writ petition against the Gov. on the issue of his superannuation and his and GB's legal status. In May 2011, the Apex Court ruled that GB is a 'statutory public authority' created by the Grameen Bank Ordinance, 1983 and as Dr. Yunus is a 'public servant' under the same Ordinance, he is bound by the regulations that govern public servants - hence why his superannuation was at 60. (It is important to note how conclusive such a judgment is as it is made by an apex body. Disregarding its judgment is tantamount to disregarding the Constitution as it's the head arbiter of the supreme law of the country.)
6. An Independent Inquiry Commission is set up under the Inquiry Commissions Act with a very different panel from the earlier Committee, who are tasked with unearthing the factual matrix which underlies the entire issue i.e. the legal status of GB and its associated entities, who 'owns' GB and its associated entities and who 'runs' GB and its associated entities and then make recommendations on how to bring its operations in line with the law, if any divergences are found. The work of the Inquiry Commission is ongoing.
7. Nicholas Kristoff, Richard Branson, 17 Female US Senators, Madeleine Albright, the former Irish President, the Economist, etc. all expressed concern in various ways about the 'government takeover' of GB, its potential harmful effect on women and the political vendetta they feel underlies this entire issue. The Gov. have gone on to express their ire over this issue and tried to posit their view that this does not amount to a takeover and that they will seek to uphold the rights of women, through a series of letters, rebuttals and gaffes.
That's basically how it stands now. Not ideal, but hardly Soviet-style nationalisation either. Needless to say this is an immensely complex issue and given the popularity of Dr. Yunus worldwide, it is unsurprising that it is catching headlines more regularly than legal violations in other areas - not that I agree with it or with Jadukor bhai that some legal issues have been getting shamefully little attention. (For instance, the murder of labor leader Amirul Islam....)