New Delhi: Bangladeshi Nobel peace laureate Muhammad Yunus was on Monday sentenced to six months in jail by a court on a labour law case decried by his supporters as “politically motivated”.
The 83-year-old, known as the “banker to the poorest of the poor,” won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.
While pronouncing the judgment, Labour Court judge Sheikh Merina Sultana said, “The allegation of violating the Labour Law against him has been proved. It appears that the allegation has not been barred by limitation (either),” reported PTI.
According to the report, the judge from the Third Labour Court ruled that Yunus would undergo a six-month term of simple or non-rigorous imprisonment.
This ruling was made on the grounds of law violation during his tenure as the chairman of Grameen Telecom, along with three other executives associated with the social business company.
Additionally, the judge imposed a fine of Taka 25,000 on each of them, saying that in default they would have to serve 10 more days in jail.
Following the verdict, Yunus and the three co-accused filed for bail, and the judge immediately granted one month’s bail in exchange for a Taka 5,000 bond, reported PTI.
Under the law, Yunus and the three others could appeal against the verdict in the High Court.
Yunus, whose experiment of poor men’s banking earned Bangladesh the reputation of being the home of microfinance, and three of his colleagues in Grameen Telecom, one of the firms he founded, were accused of violating labour laws when they failed to create a workers’ welfare fund in the company, according to PTI.
Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-poverty campaign through the Grameen Bank, a mode which was replicated across continents.
Yunus, however, has earned the enmity of longtime Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has accused him of “sucking blood” from the poor. He has been in a protracted row with PM Sheikh Hasina’s government due to obscure reasons while authorities began a series of investigations against him after she came to power in 2008.
His supporters described the judgment as “politically motivated”.