Former sponsors of EXIM Bank have mounted a direct and calculated challenge to the ongoing merger process, seeking to reclaim control by invoking a powerful clause-Section 18(ka)-of the newly enacted Bank Company (Amendment) Act, 2026.
In a sharply worded letter to Bangladesh Bank, received on Monday, the group, led by former chairman Nazrul Islam Swapan, requested an urgent meeting with the governor.
The language is formal, but the intent is clear: to reopen the question of ownership and authority at a time when the sector is being forcibly reshaped.
They have zeroed in on Section 18(ka)-not casually, but precisely. This is the clause they believe could tilt the balance.
The interim government's merger push, presented as a clean-up of weak banks, is now facing resistance from within the system it seeks to reform.
While the sponsors do not state it explicitly, the undertone is unmistakable-there is unease, even rejection, of a process seen by some as rushed, top-down, and disruptive to established ownership structures.
By seeking to "discuss important aspects" of the clause, the group is effectively questioning the execution of the merger framework without directly confronting it. It is a careful move-a legal entry point and a quiet but firm pushback.
Insiders say Section 18(ka) could have implications for board reconstitution, ownership rights, and regulatory oversight-areas that lie at the heart of any merger decision.
If interpreted broadly, it may offer former stakeholders a foothold to renegotiate terms or delay consolidation.
This is not routine correspondence; it is strategic positioning.
Bangladesh Bank now faces a narrowing path. It must push forward with consolidation to stabilise the sector, yet it cannot ignore a coordinated assertion from former owners invoking the very law meant to empower the regulator.
Any engagement risks opening the door to similar claims from others watching closely.
The friction is no longer beneath the surface-it is active, organised, and legally framed.
EXIM's former sponsors have made their move-measured in tone, firm in substance. They want their bank back, or at least a decisive say in its future.
By formally seeking a meeting with the governor, they have turned a policy process into a contested arena.
The merger drive was meant to be swift; it may no longer be smooth.
