BNP Standing Committee member Moudud Ahmed yesterday claimed that before approving charge sheet against him in a case filed for allegedly grabbing government land, the ACC should have recorded his statement as per the rules.
However, the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 states that it is up to the commission whether it would hear the statement of an accused or not during investigation on a matter.
On Wednesday, the ACC at a regular meeting approved a charge sheet which was based on a five-month-long investigation. It found Moudud and his brother Manzur Ahmed, now living in London, responsible for grabbing a government property valued Tk300 crore since 1978 by producing different fake documents and abusing power.
An ACC official said there was no obligation to hear an accused before finalising charge sheet. “However, Moudud was asked to give statement by an ACC team at the jail gate during investigation in the case,” the official said.
At a press briefing on the Supreme Court premises, Moudud said his brother got the ownership of the house in the capital’s Gulshan area through a High Court verdict. In addition, the High Court in another case said the house was not an abandoned property and the government had no ownership on the house, he said.
“The appeals of the government and the Rajuk against the High Court judgements are pending with the Appellate Division. So, filing of this type of criminal case against me is motivated.”
Before the government and the Rajuk obtained permission to file appeals, Attorney General Mahbubey Alam had told the apex court that ownership of Moudud’s brother on the house was based on fake documents.
ACC counsel Khurshid Alam Khan told the Dhaka Tribune that the Supreme Court in many judgements clearly said criminal case and civil suit could be continued simultaneously.
The criminal case against Moudud and his brother was lodged on December 17 last year for fraud and misconduct while the appeals pending with the Appellate Division were on ownership of the house. “So, charging Moudud and his brother in the criminal case is right,” Khurshid said.
According to the case, the house on 1.13bigha (0.374 acre) land belonged to Mohammad Ehsan and his wife Inze Maria Flatz – two Pakistani nationals who left the country before the 1971 Liberation War. It was included in the list of government’s abandoned property on January 21, 1972. On August 2, 1973, Moudud prepared a counterfeit power of attorney of Maria Flatz to capture the land and used it to gain his own interest. Since then, he had been living in the house showing himself as a tenant of Maria Flatz, the case document says.