No talks held with Jamaat on foreign deals

Staff Reporter :

The chief of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and opposition leader Shafiqur Rahman has alleged that his party was not consulted on several international agreements signed during the tenure of the country’s interim government.

In a post published Friday afternoon on his verified Facebook page, Rahman said the interim administration had concluded a number of agreements with foreign countries without discussing them with Jamaat.

“During the tenure of the previous interim government, several agreements were signed with different countries,” Rahman wrote.

“But unfortunately, the government did not hold any discussion with us regarding such agreements.”

Rahman said his party had repeatedly urged the authorities to consult political parties on key national matters, especially in the absence of parliament.

“We had demanded several times that since there was no parliament, the government should make decisions on important issues such as international agreements through consultations with political parties, just as it did on other national issues,” he wrote.

“But the then government did not take our demands into consideration.

Therefore, our position on this matter is clear and there is no scope for creating any confusion.”

However, the interim government previously stated that it had held discussions with political parties on various matters during its tenure.

The issue resurfaced after remarks by the current foreign minister, Khalilur Rahman, who also served as national security adviser under the previous administration.

Rahman recently said that representatives of the Office of the United States Trade Representative had spoken with the leaders of the country’s two major political parties before the election regarding related issues, and that they had given their consent.

Rahman’s comments prompted a response from Jamaat’s leadership, which insists that it was not involved in any such consultations and maintains that decisions on international agreements during the interim period should have been taken through broader political dialogue.

The debate reflects continuing disagreements among political parties over the transparency and consultation process surrounding key policy decisions made during the interim administration’s tenure.