Despite the enthusiasm of the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government, Grameenphone’s proposal to settle its billion-dollar revenue dispute out of court through arbitration has remained undecided until the national election.
The attempt to resolve Bangladesh’s largest telecom revenue dispute outside the courtroom has run into regulatory deadlock, with the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) unable to reach a unified legal decision.
Analysts say GP’s attempt to secure a faster settlement, possibly by paying a smaller amount, faces uncertainty as BTRC’s own legal advisers are divided over whether a statutory dispute of this nature can legally be referred to arbitration.
The operator in July last year sought arbitration to settle the long-running audit demand worth more than Tk12,580 crore, a claim that has loomed for six years and now remains a defining test of Bangladesh’s regulatory environment and investment climate, industry people said.
“We are reviewing the possible legal and economic implications of the arbitration process for the government,” BTRC Chairman Major General Emdad-ul Bari told TIMES.
Chief Adviser’s Special Assistant for Posts, Telecommunications and ICT Faiz Ahmad Taiyab told TIMES, “We will seek a formal opinion from our lawyers.”
Earlier in October, welcoming the GP proposal, he said efficient arbitration should facilitate all licensees’ doing business. Grameenphone had shared details of its concerns regarding the disputed claims, and the interim government was “positive about a win-win solution.”
He also said the ousted Awami League government aggressively targeted foreign operators while overlooking some favoured local industry players, and the interim government was auditing all, for the facts.
Biggest telecom dispute in Bangladesh
The dispute traces back to April 2019, when BTRC, based on an external auditor’s report, issued an audit demand of around Tk12,580 crore against GP for the period from 1997 to 2014.
The amount includes shares belonging to both BTRC and the National Board of Revenue (NBR).
The operator challenged the demand the same year by filing Title Suit No 710 of 2019 in a Dhaka court. Six years later, the case has still not reached a final resolution.
GP says delays in civil court proceedings and the likelihood of appeals mean the dispute is unlikely to be settled soon.
In its July 2025 application, the company said the dispute involves technical and accounting complexities that could be resolved faster through an arbitration tribunal composed of experts.
The operator argues that arbitration is time-efficient, could allow a merit-based solution acceptable to all parties and help restore investor confidence.
Divided legal opinion inside BTRC
Internal regulatory documents seen by TIMES of Bangladesh show sharp disagreement among BTRC’s legal experts, including retainer law firms and panel lawyers, over the proposal.
One retainer firm, Justiciars, said under the Arbitration Act 2001 both parties may voluntarily enter into a limited arbitration agreement for this dispute, allowing quicker settlement.
The firm advised that any agreement should remain confined to the current dispute and must not affect future regulatory claims or the broader dispute resolution framework.
However, another law firm, Capital Law Chamber, and an arbitration expert panel lawyer opposed the proposal.
Capital Law Chamber argued the audit demand arises from a statutory obligation under the Telecommunication Act 2001, meaning it is not arbitrable like a private commercial dispute.
They said courts have consistently ruled on statutory revenue claims or regulator-imposed liabilities, requiring GP to deposit Tk2,000 crore based on the 2020 Appellate Division order.
Arbitration would disrupt an ongoing judicial process, forcing a restart, causing further delay and creating a negative precedent for future regulatory enforcement, the firm added.
BTRC panel lawyer and arbitration expert Khaled Hamid Chowdhury said there is currently no effective arbitration agreement between BTRC and operators.
He cautioned that creating a new agreement could conflict with the public-interest regulatory framework, and any award could face court challenges on grounds of public policy and non-arbitrability.
He said the legally safer path is to pursue mediation within the court framework while preserving statutory powers.
Because of these conflicting opinions, BTRC has not been able to take a final position. Multiple sources said further internal examination of arbitration and mediation has been ordered, with no possibility of completion before the national election.
Mediation hearing deferred at local court
In GP’s case, a mediation hearing was set in the lower court on 11 January but did not take place.
Grameenphone Head of Communications Sharfuddin Ahmed Chowdhury told TIMES the next date has been set for 26 April.
Lawyers said this is not directly linked to the arbitration application but part of routine civil court mediation provisions.
GP is not alone. In 2019, BTRC also claimed Tk867.24 crore from competitor Robi Axiata PLC following the same audit process.
Robi is also fighting a civil case in a Dhaka court, which remains pending at the lower court level.
Due to doubts over the legal basis of arbitration, Robi chose mediation instead in 2025.
Robi Chief Corporate and Regulatory Officer Shahed Alam said as a responsible corporate entity, they support alternative dispute resolution principles and are continuing constructive engagement with the regulator.
However, BTRC lawyers believe Robi’s proposed mediation terms contain clauses that could ultimately create an obligation to refer the matter to arbitration if mediation fails.
As a result, Robi’s proposal also remains under cautious review.
Similar to GP, the mediation hearing set in January in the Robi case has also been deferred to April.
BTRC has not yet formed a unified position on arbitration or mediation for either operator.
While the interim government may be exploring compromise, legal risks and the public-interest nature of revenue recovery mean it remains uncertain whether arbitration will be chosen to resolve this billion-dollar audit claim.
