Microfinance to Mistrust: Yunus’s ethical dilemma in the poverty-baron scandal

By Chris Blackburn

When Muhammad Yunus accepted the role of Chief Adviser to Bangladesh’s interim government in August 2024, he did so under immense public and international expectation. A Nobel laureate and founder of the Grameen Bank, Yunus’s reputation had long been anchored in ethical finance and grassroots empowerment. But less than a year into his transitional leadership, a quietly disbursed UK aid payment—connected to a deeply controversial figure in Britain’s foreign aid history—is now casting a shadow over that legacy.

A reputation at risk

The UK-funded “Bangladesh – Conflict, Accountability, and Peaceful Politics (B-CAPP)” programme, administered by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), is supporting Yunus’s interim administration through technical assistance and governance facilitation. On 16 March 2025, a payment of £177,233 was made by the UK government to Alinea International, a Canadian development consultancy tasked with managing the programme component that supports the Office of the Chief Adviser.

While routine on paper, the payment has sparked concern due to Alinea’s reported links to William Morrison—a figure widely associated with a major foreign aid scandal in the UK. Morrison was a former executive at Adam Smith International (ASI), a private consultancy at the centre of a 2017 controversy over the misuse of confidential UK government documents for commercial benefit. Following a series of exposés, including coverage by The Guardian and BBC, four ASI executives, including Morrison, resigned after enormous pressure from the British media, parliament, and government.

At the time, the public outrage was fierce. The Sun summarised the mood with a scathing headline: “FOUR ‘poverty barons’ have quit a hated foreign aid contractor accused of exploiting the world’s poorest and British taxpayers for profit.”

Morrison reportedly received over £1 million in dividends before stepping down. His name became synonymous with the critique that aid had been hijacked by corporate profiteers—a sharp contrast to Yunus’s lifelong image as a champion of ethical reform. His reported association with Alinea, now implementing components of UK assistance in Bangladesh, raises uncomfortable questions about oversight and integrity.

Sheikh Hasina reveals Yunus empire, built on ill-gotten money

Sheikh Hasina condemns corruption as Grameen Telecom gets digital wallet license

Fact-check: How Yunus lies about his complicity in July Conspiracy

Fact-check: Legitimacy of Yunus government in question

A spokesperson for Adam Smith International has denied wrongdoing. In a statement to the Daily Mail, ASI said: “Adam Smith International refutes the characterisation in this article. ASI has never been found to have overcharged or excessively profiteered, and the Parliamentary Committee found that it was not misled and did not find that ASI falsified testimonials.”

Direct FCDO backing

An official entry on the UK government’s DevTracker platform confirms that the £177,233 disbursed to Alinea is part of a larger £474,468 contract under the B-CAPP programme. The funds are designated for “Support to the Office of the Chief Adviser in Bangladesh,” with the stated goal of enhancing the OCA’s capacity for reform management and strategic communications. According to the programme description, the support aims to help the interim government engage more effectively with stakeholders, the media, and the public while “improving the government’s narrative and combating misinformation.”

The language is notable, especially given the controversy around Alinea’s leadership and the potential overlap with political messaging.

Due diligence, or dangerous neglect?

The B-CAPP programme has a total budget of £26,999,984, with £6,777,823 spent to date. Although the £177,233 paid to Alinea constitutes only a small portion of this, the symbolism is significant. The core issue is not financial scale, but ethical alignment.

Yunus’s appointment was intended as a turning point—a clean break from the years of authoritarian drift, political suppression, and entrenched corruption that characterised the previous regime. His leadership was meant to restore public trust and international credibility. The potential re-emergence of Morrison—even indirectly—within this reformist project undermines that narrative.

This raises urgent questions:

• Were Alinea’s leadership or advisory links to William Morrison disclosed to Bangladeshi or UK authorities?

• Did Yunus’s interim government conduct any due diligence before agreeing to work with a contractor chosen by foreign donors?

• What conflict-of-interest safeguards are in place when foreign-funded contractors engage with top government offices?

The questions are amplified by Morrison’s current affiliation with a private firm called MetricsLed, which claims to work with intelligence partners in the Five Eyes countries. In the context of swirling speculation around Sheikh Hasina’s sudden political fall, some voices in India and the United States have pointed to possible Five Eyes involvement, but with zero evidence. While such claims remain unverified, Morrison’s visible connection to this space—and his track record with ASI—makes his quiet re-entry into UK-funded development work particularly sensitive.

Unless these questions are answered transparently, the interim government risks being seen not as a force for change, but as a continuation of problematic donor practices under new branding.

A fragile political context

This controversy has emerged at a delicate moment. Yunus’s administration is already under domestic pressure, including mounting student-led protests, civil society mobilisation, and infighting within opposition blocs like the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Reports also suggest growing unease within military circles.

Internationally, trust remains tentative. During a recent visit to London, Yunus reportedly did not meet UK Labour leader Keir Starmer. While some viewed this as a political snub, Labour sources attributed it to scheduling issues. Still, the absence of a meeting—in a context of rising scrutiny over foreign aid governance—did little to bolster Yunus’s image abroad.

Meanwhile, the UK’s National Audit Office has renewed its focus on the performance and accountability of private contractors within the British aid system. This shift in oversight revives public memories of the ASI scandal and makes the reappearance of figures like Morrison particularly toxic for any transitional authority seeking legitimacy.

A LinkedIn listing previously showed William Morrison as Team Leader at Alinea International, claiming advisory roles to “three Iraqi Prime Ministers and the Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, Romania, Kenya, and Zimbabwe.” The Bangladesh reference has since been quietly removed. The timing raises further questions about his involvement in ongoing programmes and whether disclosure obligations were properly met.

Rebuilding trust—or losing it permanently

This scandal is not merely about one firm or one disbursement. It is about how Yunus navigates the responsibilities of power. As a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, he has long embodied a moral compass for ethical development. But governing a nation requires more than symbolic integrity—it demands systems of transparency, accountability, and decisive leadership.

To preserve his credibility, Yunus must swiftly clarify the facts surrounding Alinea’s role and any potential links to controversial figures. Transparency and proactive communication may be his best tools to restore public and diplomatic confidence.

Without these steps, the interim leadership may lose the confidence of both domestic stakeholders and international allies.

From microfinance to moral leadership

Muhammad Yunus built his legacy on restoring dignity to the poor and demanding accountability from the powerful. That legacy is now being tested—not by courtroom trials or development accolades, but by the real-world decisions of governance.

One receipt of a payment from a firm linked to a controversial figure may seem minor, but the ethical signals it sends are profound. In public life, reputations are not destroyed by dramatic failures, but by a slow erosion of trust. The moment to reverse that erosion is now.

In politics, trust is not spent in millions. It is spent in moments like these.

Chris Blackburn: Communications Director of the European Bangladesh Forum and co-founder of Global Friends of Afghanistan