In this latest evaluation of the interim administration’s governance, the Laldia Container Terminal agreement stands as a stark reminder that structural transparency remains an elusive goal in Bangladesh’s political transition. Despite the widespread public demand for a departure from the secretive deal-making of the past, the rapid finalisation of this 30-year contract with Denmark’s APM Terminals has ignited a firestorm of criticism. While the project itself—a sophisticated terminal in Chattogram—is essential for the country’s maritime efficiency, the procedural shadows surrounding it have led many to question whether the “New Bangladesh” is merely repeating the procurement errors of the old regime.
The genesis of this agreement is rooted in a non-competitive, unsolicited proposal from the Maersk Group (the parent company of APM Terminals) in 2023, which received direct authorisation from the now-ousted Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina. Although the current interim government initially signaled a “zero-tolerance” policy towards non-competitive contracts signed by its predecessors—scrapping several high-profile energy and infrastructure deals—the Laldia project was surprisingly accelerated rather than re-tendered. This decision to bypass the “Swiss Challenge” or a standard open tender has prevented the state from verifying if better commercial terms could have been secured through market competition.
A Comparative Analysis of Procurement Standards
| Feature | Global Best Practice Standards | Laldia Terminal Agreement |
| Procurement Route | Open Competitive Tender | Direct Negotiation (Unsolicited) |
| Vetting Timeline | 6 to 12 months for complex PPPs | Approximately 14 days in Nov 2025 |
| Public Disclosure | Active publication of contract terms | Classified under 2015 “Secrecy” law |
| Stakeholder Inclusivity | Consensus with major political blocs | Opposition parties (BNP/JI) excluded |
| Lease Duration | Benchmarked to ROI (usually 20-25 yrs) | 33 years (extendable to 48 years) |
The sheer velocity of the approval process has left seasoned observers stunned. The entire administrative journey—from the submission of technical proposals on 4 November 2025 to the formal signing of the contract on 17 November—took a mere two weeks. This timeline included cabinet committee nods and final approval from the Chief Adviser, Dr Muhammad Yunus. Critics have noted with significant suspicion that the signing ceremony was held on the same day the International Crimes Tribunal issued high-profile rulings against Sheikh Hasina, effectively burying the port news under a mountain of sensational headlines.
Moreover, the government’s refusal to disclose the specific terms of the deal, citing confidentiality clauses in the PPP Act 2015, has been described as a major step backward. Modern democratic standards in nations like Brazil, Peru, and the United Kingdom treat signed public-private partnership (PPP) contracts as public documents to prevent corruption and ensure long-term stability. By keeping the major political stakeholders—who may well form the next elected government—in the dark, the interim administration risks leaving the terminal’s future vulnerable to legal challenges and political reversals. Ultimately, while the terminal may prove to be a technical success, the manner of its birth has failed the transparency litmus test that the 2024 uprising was supposed to establish.