RAJUK Chairman Major General (retired) Md. Siddiqur Rahman Sarkar has sent a letter to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) requesting a review of the inclusion of RAJUK and Ministry of Housing and Public Works (MHPW) officials in cases concerning the allocation of plots to ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and five of her family members.
The letter, sent recently, argues that the land allocation was conducted in accordance with RAJUK regulations and that the officials in question had merely followed government directives. The chairman emphasised that some of the accused had only signed documents, received letters, or handled dispatches, and were not involved in any alleged fraud or irregularities.
According to the letter, the six plots—each measuring 10 kathas—were allocated under RAJUK’s land allocation policy based on official correspondence from the Prime Minister’s Office and the MHPW. The recipients were Sheikh Hasina, Sajeeb Wazed Joy, Saima Wazed, Sheikh Rehana, Azmina Siddiq, and Radwan Mujib Siddiq. The letter also cited provisions in RAJUK’s policy that allow the government to allocate plots under specific circumstances.
The ACC initiated an inquiry into allegations of irregularities in these allocations on 26 December 2024, later filing six separate cases accusing Hasina, her sister Sheikh Rehana, their children, and several officials from RAJUK and the MHPW of misuse of power.
Siddiqur highlighted the impact of the case on RAJUK’s daily operations, stating, “The officials are not coming to the office due to fear of arrest, making it difficult to carry out daily tasks. To relieve their concerns, we have requested a thorough review to determine whether they were genuinely responsible and had violated any laws.”
He further noted that while any official who knowingly broke the law should be held accountable, clerks and computer operators who were merely part of the bureaucratic process must have their roles properly assessed.
The letter underscored that RAJUK and ministry officials were legally obligated to process government orders. Had they refused, they could have faced legal consequences under relevant laws. “Therefore, as the officials did not act beyond legal and regulatory provisions, their inclusion in the case appears unjustified,” the letter concluded.
