Opposition lawmaker and member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Finance, Hasnat Abdullah, has alleged that the BNP is planning to introduce a new formula to form a one-party-controlled caretaker government similar to that of 2006.
He also accused the party of potentially resorting to what he described as a deceptive new arrangement and using religious sentiment for political purposes.
Hasnat made the remarks while speaking to reporters after a meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Finance at the National Parliament on Sunday.
He alleged that, like the Awami League government, the BNP government was also attempting to hand over the banking sector to oligarchic groups.
Hasnat said the government had been forced to repeal Section 18(a) of the Bank Resolution Act, 2026, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
He said he had raised objections at the committee meeting to a proposal to provide Tk20,000 crore in loans to distressed industries. If the loans were distributed through Bangladesh Bank instead of commercial banks, he said, it could create scope for political influence and raise concerns that BNP-aligned businesses could benefit.
Hasnat also said private-sector credit growth had fallen to a record low, constraining employment opportunities. He called for stricter measures to prevent loan defaulters from obtaining fresh loans.
He further alleged that the BNP had taken a “dual position” on the referendum, which he said had eroded public confidence in the party.
Meanwhile, committee member Saiful Alam Milon said the government, including the finance minister, had responded positively to proposals raised by the opposition.
He said the proposals would be discussed at the committee’s next meeting.
Milon also called for the issues, including the government’s position on the July Charter and the note of dissent, to be placed before parliament.
Referring to the home minister’s statement in parliament that the July Charter was an “endless document of deception”, Milon said the public would judge the matter if those who signed the document themselves now described it as deceptive.
He added that he did not want to engage in what he termed a meaningless debate.
