Selim R. F. Hussain, Managing Director and CEO of BRAC Bank, stepped down in May 2025, one year before his renewed contract was set to expire.
Officially, his resignation was framed as a personal decision. But within the banking community, few accept that explanation at face value. His departure, many believe, was the culmination of a quiet but deliberate sidelining– triggered by one speech and sustained through institutional neglect.
In late 2024, at a seminar organised by the Bangladesh Institute of Bank Management, Hussain delivered a frank assessment of irregularities within the country’s financial regulatory ecosystem. Without naming individuals, he alluded to a culture of favouritism and undue influence among certain former senior officials at the central bank.
Though he made a point to commend the honesty of most Bangladesh Bank officials, the nuance was lost in the fallout.
His remarks were met with immediate backlash.
The Bangladesh Bank Officers’ Welfare Council condemned his statements as offensive. A formal apology followed. Hussain wrote to the governor expressing regret, calling his comments “rash and inconsiderate.” BRAC Bank clarified that his views did not represent the institution.
Still, the consequences lingered.
Despite holding the position of president of the Association of Bankers, Bangladesh– a role traditionally aligned with consultative status– he found himself excluded from high-level meetings convened by the central bank. More significantly, internal sources confirmed that several regulatory files from BRAC Bank, including standard approvals, remained stuck at Bangladesh Bank with no clear explanation.
Within the bank and among his peers, the signals were interpreted as unmistakable. A previously engaged and vocal leader had been frozen out of policy dialogues. For a professional known for advocating institutional reform, data-driven banking, and ethical governance, the narrowing of operational space became untenable.
Those close to the process say that Hussain’s resignation was a last resort, not a planned move. He had one year left in his contract and no record of financial mismanagement. His exit, thus, marks a different kind of failure– not of leadership, but of tolerance.
It raises difficult questions.
What happens when a technocrat speaks uncomfortable truths? Can the country afford to alienate those who seek institutional accountability? While the central bank has refrained from offering any comment, the optics of silence speak volumes.
Selim R. F. Hussain leaves behind a track record of performance, professionalism, and integrity. His departure, however quiet, serves as a signal to the industry: efficiency alone is not always enough.
In today’s Bangladesh, institutional survival may depend more on silence than on competence.