Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Chairman Dr Mohammad Abdul Momen on Tuesday said that Tulip Siddiq is a citizen of Bangladesh, expressing confidence that she respects the law of the land and will face it in accordance with the country’s legal framework.
“Tulip, daughter of Sheikh Rehana and niece of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, is a citizen of Bangladesh. We have her Bangladeshi NID (National Identity Card). Her Tax Identification Number (TIN) and income tax certificate are from Bangladesh. She has also submitted her income tax return to the National Board of Revenue (NBR) as a Bangladeshi citizen," Momen said during a press briefing at the ACC headquarters in Segunbagicha.
"If there is any allegation against such a Bangladeshi, it is our responsibility to deal with it. The complaint will be filed in Bangladesh, not in the UK—this is a matter for Bangladesh. We believe Tulip respects the law, and we expect her to face it in accordance with the laws of Bangladesh."
The ACC chairman further said: “We have received a letter from Tulip’s lawyer, which I downloaded from email. The contents of that letter have already been widely reported in the media, including some quite amusing parts. The most interesting issue is whether the ACC or Bangladesh is interfering in UK politics. I ask—Is Tulip’s case really one that could destabilize Britain’s fragile political system? I think we need to look at this differently.”
He added: “I spent more than three years in London. If I committed a crime in London and then returned to Bangladesh by any means, and a case was filed against me in the UK, would British courts, anti-corruption bodies, and police come all the way to Bangladesh to try me? Or would it be my responsibility to go and face the charges there?
"... from the letters we are receiving, it seems there is an attempt to resolve legal matters through correspondence. That is not how it works. If there is a court case, it must be addressed in court. The allegations are not yet proven, and that is for the court to decide. It is the accused’s duty to appear in court and defend themselves.”
Momen emphasized: “The same applies to Tulip. We have repeatedly said this is not a political case. It is not a targeted case. It is not meant to defame anyone. Tulip is an accused, just like many others facing cases filed by the ACC. In fact, the ACC is handling far more serious cases than this. There is no reason to think this is an exceptional case.”
In response to a question on whether the ACC’s case against Tulip amounts to interference in UK politics, the ACC chairman said: “That is my question too. Is UK politics so fragile that a single case against Tulip could collapse its entire government and system? If we assume she is a British citizen, does a case against her mean the British government will fall? Such claims are ridiculous. Lawyers must be careful with their choice of words; they are belittling their own country by implying its politics are so fragile. We have no interest in interfering. The scope of our work does not allow political involvement. We are simply pursuing legal action against an accused person.”
When asked whether Tulip would be brought back to Bangladesh, he said: “If someone does not appear in court after being summoned or having a warrant issued against them, they are considered a fugitive. There are standard procedures for dealing with fugitives, such as seeking assistance from Interpol. Interpol itself does not make arrests; it coordinates with local police. We expect not only Tulip but all those accused in ACC cases to come forward and face justice.”
In response to a question about Tulip claiming she wrote three letters to the ACC without receiving a reply, the ACC chairman said: “We informed her from the beginning that our legal process requires her to appear in person or through her lawyer. She is fully aware of this. There is no scope to claim she does not know what is going on.”
Momen said three cases have been filed against Tulip and another case is under investigation.
He reiterated that the ACC does not pursue politically motivated cases. “The ACC works on a paper-based process. If there is documentary evidence and we find inconsistencies in that documentation, only then is a case filed. This standard applies to Tulip as well as anyone else.”