B.Mirror Desk: Governments have changed, and the policy-making framework for the energy sector has shifted as well. Yet, allegations persist that a long-standing business circle continues to exert influence over the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation’s (BPC) fuel imports. An analysis of BPC tenders, work orders, and related documents reveals that the local representation for several listed international suppliers is linked to the same business group. Notably, a significant portion of the work orders for BPC’s refined fuel imports for the 2025-26 fiscal year has also gone to these entities. This situation has raised fresh questions regarding competition in fuel imports, security of supply, and the risk of excessive government expenditure.
Allegations regarding the influence of a specific business circle in Bangladesh’s energy sector have existed for a long time. Industry insiders claim that the business networks established during the Awami League government’s long tenure have not been fully dismantled even after the change of government.
An analysis of BPC documents, tenders, and work orders shows that at least six of the eleven international firms listed for refined fuel supply have local representation or business ties with two companies owned by Dr. Ejazur Rahman: Seven Mark and Transbangla Commodities Limited.
International firms linked to Seven Mark include Unipec Singapore Pte Ltd and Indonesia’s PT Bumi Siak Pusako (BSP)-Japin. Meanwhile, Petco Trading Labuan Company Limited, PTT International Trading, Vitol Asia, and Sinochem International Oil have been identified as having ties to Transbangla Commodities.
In essence, the investigation reveals that while these firms operate independently at the international level, a significant portion of their local representation in Bangladesh is connected to the same business circle.
According to BPC data, work orders for the import of approximately 5.51 million tonnes of refined fuel—procured through both G2G (government-to-government) arrangements and open tenders—have been issued for the 2025-26 fiscal year. Investigations revealed that approximately 4.3 million tonnes of fuel were awarded to companies maintaining local representation or business ties with entities linked to Ejaz. By calculation, this accounts for nearly 78 percent of the total work orders.
However, the volume of work orders alone is not sufficient to conclude that irregularities occurred. Factors such as price, quality, supply capacity, prior experience, and tender conditions are all taken into account in international fuel procurement. The core issues concern the scope for competition and supply-related risks.
A review of tender documents for the June–August period shows that the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation (BPC) initiated a process to import between 925,000 and 1,150,000 tonnes of refined fuel across four packages.
Under the PG-1 package, Unipec Singapore secured the contract to supply 320,000–390,000 tonnes of diesel and 70,000–90,000 tonnes of jet fuel.
Vitol Asia won the contract for the PG-2 package, covering the supply of 300,000–340,000 tonnes of diesel and 60,000–80,000 tonnes of jet fuel.
Trafigura secured the PG-3 package for 150,000–200,000 tonnes of furnace oil, while Vitol Asia won the PG-4 package for 25,000–50,000 tonnes of octane.
Investigations revealed that the local representatives for Unipec and Vitol Asia—companies that secured three of these four packages—are linked to entities associated with Ejaz. The total projected import cost for these packages exceeds BDT 17,000 crore.
In fuel procurement, the premium is determined by factoring in international prices alongside costs for local transport, insurance, freight, and other risk-related elements. Recent tenders have seen a significant increase in the premiums quoted by certain companies.
In the open tender for the January–June period of the 2025–26 fiscal year, Unipec secured contracts with premiums of $4.72 per barrel for diesel and $6.86 per barrel for jet fuel. During the same period, Vitol Asia’s premiums stood at $4.78 per barrel for diesel and $6.88 per barrel for jet fuel. In the tender for the subsequent June–August period, Unipec proposed premiums of $13.25 for diesel and $14.86 for jet fuel, while Vitol Asia’s bids were $13.18 and $14.78, respectively.
Sources within the BPC state that there are valid reasons for the rise in premiums during this period, citing the conflict in the Middle East and increased risks associated with international shipping. However, observers question whether—alongside the impact of the international market—limited competition and a restricted number of suppliers are also contributing to the hike in premiums. …played a role in this?
To answer this question, they believe a comparative analysis is needed between the international and regional market rates of that period and the purchase prices paid by the BPC.
BPC records indicate that during the recent tensions in the Middle East, two international suppliers—represented locally by entities linked to Ejaz—expressed an inability to supply certain fuel shipments. Relevant sources confirmed that this matter was also noted in the minutes of a BPC board meeting.
Energy sector experts observe that just as over-reliance on a single country or region creates risk, depending on a limited number of suppliers can exacerbate problems during a crisis. If multiple suppliers withdraw simultaneously, procuring fuel quickly from alternative sources can become difficult.
The investigation has also revealed the involvement of former officials from the BPC and its subsidiary oil marketing companies with Ejaz’s business entities.
Sources claim that at least ten former officials from the BPC and oil marketing companies joined Ejaz’s firms after retirement. Their previous roles ranged from oil trading and marketing to international supply operations and administration.
Multiple sources have confirmed that Mostafa Qudrut-e-Elahi, the former Managing Director of Jamuna Oil Company, has also become associated with Trans-Bangla Commodities.
The investigation further revealed that the offices of Ejaz’s companies are located in the same building as the BPC’s Dhaka liaison office in the capital’s Karwan Bazar area.
A retired official taking a job at a company does not, in itself, constitute proof of irregularity. However, industry insiders believe it is necessary to examine potential conflicts of interest arising from the officials’ past responsibilities, the nature of their current employers’ businesses, and ongoing commercial ties with the BPC.
Questions have also been raised regarding BSP-Japin of Indonesia, which is represented locally by Ejaz-linked entities. Some officials have questioned whether the company met the BPC’s prescribed eligibility criteria when it was listed as a supplier under the G2G (government-to-government) mechanism. Records from the Chattogram Port reveal that several fuel shipments destined for the BPC (Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation) under the company’s name originated from ports in Malaysia and Singapore, rather than Indonesia.
However, the use of third-country ports for supply does not, in itself, constitute evidence of irregularity. The crucial factors are whether the company met the BPC’s prescribed eligibility criteria at the time of its enlistment as a supplier and the nature of the documentation submitted in that regard.
Industry insiders believe that long-standing business dependencies could be reduced if the government takes initiatives to diversify fuel supply sources and foster market competition. Nevertheless, it is essential to ensure greater transparency in the tendering process, regularly verify supplier qualifications, and examine potential conflicts of interest regarding local representation.
Professor M Shamsul Alam, Energy Advisor to the Consumers Association of Bangladesh, stated that it is a serious matter if an individual interferes with competition by influencing the tender process. Legal action should be taken against the concerned individual if concrete evidence substantiating such allegations is found.
Overall, allegations regarding the enduring influence of a specific business clique over fuel imports have resurfaced. An impartial review of supplier selection, tender competition, premium determination, and the business involvement of former officials could clarify the actual situation. At the same time, this would provide an opportunity to assess how the country’s risk regarding fuel supply is either diminishing or increasing.