Economy and sovereignty will be at risk if New Mooring Terminal falls into foreign hands: Anu Muhammad

If the Chittagong Port’s critical New Mooring Container Terminal (NCT) is leased out to a foreign company, it will involve not merely economic considerations, but also questions of political, military, and national sovereignty, observed economist Professor Anu Muhammad.

According to him, there is no need to rely on foreign companies to enhance the port’s operational efficiency. Alongside reforming customs, bureaucracy, and infrastructure, domestic capabilities must be strengthened.

Professor Anu Muhammad made these remarks at a roundtable titled “Chittagong Port and National Interest,” held at the Tofazzal Hossain Manik Miah Hall of the National Press Club on Tuesday. The event was organised by the Media and Civil Rights Society (MCRS).

Anu Muhammad said, “Bringing in a foreign company is not just an economic matter; we must also give serious consideration to its political and military dimensions.”

He further noted that foreign interest and maneuvering surrounding Chittagong Port are not new. In 1997, an initiative was taken to grant a long-term lease of the port to a US company named SSA. However, due to worker-employee movements and legal processes, it was not implemented.

He alleged that despite changes in government, similar efforts have continued. Even during the interim government’s tenure, there was a hasty push to hand over the operational control of the terminal to DP World, a port operator based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Highlighting that a major portion of Chittagong Port’s imports and exports relies on the New Mooring Container Terminal (NCT), Anu Muhammad stated that handing over its control to a foreign entity is not merely an economic decision; it is deeply intertwined with political, military, and sovereignty concerns.

He also criticised the argument that bringing in foreign companies would automatically boost capacity. According to him, countries like Singapore and Vietnam strengthened their ports by building their own national capabilities.

Alleging a lack of transparency and accountability in the government’s decision-making, Anu Muhammad stressed that credible answers must be provided to the questions being raised about the port.

He called upon citizens to build resistance in accordance with their constitutional rights if any decision is taken against the national interest. In this regard, he cited the past movements of Chittagong Port workers and employees as important precedents.

The keynote at the roundtable was presented by Sohag Kumar Biswas, Bureau Chief of the daily Amar Desh in Chattogram.

The paper emphasised that rather than limiting the debate to whether the entity is domestic or foreign, it is crucial to examine the contractual terms, financial gains, and control dynamics.

It said the NCT was constructed entirely with government funds, involving a public investment of approximately Tk 27.12 billion. Recently, an additional expenditure of around Tk 25 billion was incurred to equip it with 14 quay gantry cranes (large cranes installed at port jetties to load and unload containers from ships) and 33 RTGs (rubber-tyred gantry cranes used in port container yards).

The keynote paper mentioned that under domestic management, the NCT handled 1.385 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) in the 2025–26 financial year, which is roughly 26 per cent higher than the capacity projected by German consultants.

The keynote paper drew attention to three major proposed structural changes:

1. Nature of Responsibility: Initially designated as an ‘operator’, but later shifted to a ‘concessionaire’—meaning fee revenues will no longer be credited directly to the port’s accounts.

2. Royalty Structure: Instead of a fixed per-TEU revenue, a tiered royalty system is proposed, where the port’s share depends entirely on the ‘average revenue’ reported.

3. Tenure: While calculations were initially prepared based on a 15-year financial model, the demand has now been extended to 30 years.

The paper raised questions regarding the rationale behind extending the contract tenure to 30 years, the non-disclosure of terms, and the risks associated with allowing a single operator to manage multiple terminals. Additionally, issues concerning data security, cyber risks, and strategic control of the port were highlighted.

The keynote paper put forward seven key recommendations for managing strategic port infrastructure. Those are: open international tendering; a minimum 51 per cent equity stake for domestic partners in foreign investments; maximum tenure of 15 years; prohibiting a single operator from managing multiple container terminals; retaining state ownership of the Terminal Operating System (TOS) and operational data; disclosing draft contracts and presenting them before parliamentary committees; and, safeguarding workers’ jobs and service conditions, and mandating local institutional partnership.

Participating in the discussion, Dhaka University teacher and researcher Moshahida Sultana stated that instead of relying on foreign operators, Bangladesh requires its own investments and long-term planning for port development.

Sheikh Nurullah, a leader of the Port Protection Committee, warned that if the port is handed over to DP World, workers’ rights will be compromised, potentially leading to more intense labour agitation.

Other speakers at the meeting included Harun Or Rashid, General Secretary of the Maulana Bhasani Parishad; Abdullah Kafi Ratan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB); Satyajit Biswas, General Secretary of the Garments Workers Union Parishad; Sayedul Haq, President of the Chhatra Council; Dilip Roy, President of the Biplobi Chhatra Maitree; and Sakib Anwar, Organisational Secretary of Nagorik Oikya.

The speakers concluded that the fundamental issue is not merely “domestic versus foreign,” but rather under what terms, for how many years, with what degree of transparency, and ultimately who stands to benefit.

According to them, a flawed tender can be cancelled, and a poor investment can be restructured; however, exiting a 30-year international concession agreement involves years of litigation in arbitration courts.

Therefore, there should be no undue haste—questions must be answered before signatures are appended, they pointed out.