Govt, telcos consider settling long-drawn audit row thru arbitration

Highlights:

• Grameenphone and others seek arbitration to resolve decade-long audit disputes
• BTRC and government now open to out-of-court settlement talks
• Operators reject audit claims as flawed and beyond BTRC's authority
• Arbitration seen as faster, expert-driven path to closure and confidence
• BTRC reviewing legal options as interest on dues keeps mounting
• Government plans annual audits, reforms to prevent future prolonged disputes

Bangladesh's top mobile operators — led by Grameenphone — have formally asked the telecom regulator to settle their long-running audit disputes through expert-led arbitration, signalling a potential breakthrough in one of the country's most protracted corporate-regulatory standoffs.

For the first time, both the government and the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) appear receptive to the idea. Senior officials confirm that an out-of-court resolution is now under active consideration, raising hopes of a mutually acceptable settlement after nearly a decade of litigation.

BTRC Chairman Maj Gen Md Emdadul Bari told The Business Standard that the current impasse helps neither the regulator nor the industry.
"We also want a resolution. We are exploring whether the issue can be settled outside court, consulting our panel lawyers and examining internal options," he said, hinting that an internal review is already under way.

Robi and Banglalink — both facing smaller but similar audit claims — are closely monitoring the development, which could set a new precedent for resolving major commercial disputes in the telecom sector.

Infograph: TBS

A decade-old conflict

The disagreement stems from extensive BTRC audits covering 1997–2014, initiated in 2017 instead of through the annual process prescribed by law. In 2019, the regulator issued audit claims of Tk12,579 crore against Grameenphone, Tk867 crore against Robi, and roughly Tk823 crore against Banglalink, citing unpaid dues, fees and revenue shares.

Operators have consistently rejected the audit outcomes, calling them methodologically flawed, jurisdictionally excessive, and burdened with disproportionate interest charges. The BTRC, meanwhile, maintains that the amounts represent recoverable public revenue.

Operators push for arbitration

On 29 July 2025, Grameenphone submitted a formal proposal to the BTRC chairman seeking arbitration as a "structured, expert-driven" way to resolve the impasse. Robi followed with a similar request days later.

Grameenphone noted that its case — Title Suit No. 710 of 2019 — has seen virtually no progress in court for over six years. Given the technical complexity of the audit disputes, the operator argued that arbitration could deliver a faster and more credible outcome.

"Grameenphone has always acted as a compliant and responsible operator," said Tanveer Mohammad, the company's chief corporate affairs officer.

"Out of the Tk12,579 crore audit claim, about Tk4,000 crore belongs to the National Board of Revenue, which is beyond BTRC's jurisdiction, and around Tk6,200 crore is interest. A structured arbitration process can bring closure and restore industry confidence," he said.

Robi's Chief Corporate and Regulatory Officer Shahed Alam echoed the view, saying unresolved disputes affect investment plans and customer services. The company supports "any transparent, timely and expert-led settlement process," he added.

BTRC's shifting position

Historically, the BTRC opposed arbitration, arguing that the Telecommunication Act does not explicitly provide for such a mechanism. However, recent comments from the regulator indicate a softer tone.

A senior BTRC official said, "The existing law does not directly allow arbitration, but we are studying possible pathways. The interest on unpaid dues keeps rising, which is detrimental for all parties."

BTRC maintains that the disputed amounts are legitimately owed, as "these sums were collected from the public and should be returned to the government."

Faiz Ahmad Taiyeb, the chief adviser's special assistant for Posts, Telecommunications, and ICT, told TBS that the government is actively facilitating discussions to avoid further stagnation.

"All licensees doing business must be facilitated, and an efficient arbitration could help. GP has shared details of its concerns, and the government wants a win-win solution," he said.

He added that the interim administration plans to overhaul the audit process so that future audits are conducted annually, avoiding decades-old retrospective claims that cripple investor confidence.

He also acknowledged that the previous government's aggressive targeting of foreign operators created a perception of bias, while some local industry segments, such as IGWs and IIGs, were comparatively under-scrutinised.

IGWs deal with international calls, while IIGs deal with international internet traffic.

Audit controversy: timeline and key issues

The long-running dispute between the telecom regulator and mobile operators stems from a massive audit that began years after the fact. BTRC began auditing the accounts of mobile operators in 2017, covering the period 1997-2014, instead of conducting annual audits as prescribed by law.

According to Grameenphone's annual report, the total audit claim stands at Tk12,579 crores, of which Tk8,494 crores is payable to BTRC (including Tk6,194 crores in interest) and Tk4,085 crores to the NBR.

So far, Grameenphone has paid Tk2,392 crores, which includes Tk2,000 crore deposited under a 2019 Supreme Court order and Tk392 crore against a 2G license fee verdict.

Robi faces a separate audit claim of Tk867 crore. In 2020, the High Court directed the company to pay Tk138 crore in instalments.

Banglalink, meanwhile, is facing a smaller claim of about Tk823 crore. The operator has reportedly made partial payments while disputing some portions of the calculation.

Operators have raised several objections to the BTRC's methodology, including the inclusion of NBR dues within the BTRC's claim, which they argue falls outside the regulator's jurisdiction. They also object to the application of compound interest and the suspension of No Objection Certificate (NOC) approvals, which they described as a coercive collection mechanism.

Global precedents of arbitration in Bangladesh

Bangladesh has witnessed several high-profile arbitration cases in recent years, particularly in the energy and investment sectors, highlighting how complex commercial disputes can be resolved through international mechanisms.

One of the most prominent examples is the Niko Resources Ltd. vs Petrobangla and Bapex case, which was brought before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) over compensation claims linked to gas field explosions in the country's northeast.

In another instance, a dispute between Bangladesh and a US-based power company over independent power purchase agreements was settled through arbitration, avoiding a prolonged court process.

Similarly, Bapex vs Socar AQS LLC, a joint venture with Azerbaijan, was resolved under international commercial laws following disagreements over exploration contracts.

In the manufacturing sector, a case between Export Processing Zone (EPZ) authorities and Japan's Maruhisa Pacific went to investment arbitration under a bilateral trade treaty, further underscoring the growing reliance on arbitration to settle cross-border business disputes.

Legal experts say these examples demonstrate that arbitration can serve as a credible and effective dispute resolution mechanism, even in the absence of explicit provisions in specific sectoral laws.

They note that with mutual consent and reference to Bangladesh's existing Arbitration Act, both domestic and international entities can pursue arbitration to achieve faster, less adversarial settlements.