Ex-BRUR VC Kalimullah placed on 5-day remand in corruption case
According to the case statement, the accused colluded to alter the original design of the project by ignoring the approved Development Project Proposal (DPP). They allegedly signed contracts worth over Tk30 crore without approval from the concerned ministry or division.
A Dhaka court has placed former vice-chancellor of Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur (BRUR) Prof Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah on a five-day remand in a graft case filed over alleged irregularities in a development project of the university.
Acting Judge Md Ibrahim Mia of the Dhaka Metropolitan Senior Special Judge's court passed the order today (27 August) after a hearing.
Yesterday, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Assistant Director Minhaj Bin Islam, also the investigation officer in the case, sought a 10-day remand for Kalimullah. The court then set Wednesday (today) for the hearing.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Earlier, on 7 August, police arrested Kalimullah from his residence in Mohammadpur. On the same day, he was sent to jail.
On 18 June, the ACC filed the case against Kalimullah and four others, accusing them of misappropriating funds from the BRUR development project.
The other accused are former VC and project director AKM Nur-un-Nabi, former executive engineer and member-secretary of the tender evaluation committee Md Jahangir Alam, contractors Md A Salam Bacchu, and MM Habibur Rahman.
According to the case statement, the accused colluded to alter the original design of the project by ignoring the approved Development Project Proposal (DPP). They allegedly signed contracts worth over Tk30 crore without approval from the concerned ministry or division.
They also allegedly facilitated the embezzlement of Tk4 crore, realised as a security deposit from the contractor of the government.
Despite there being no law on advance payment in the contract with the contractor, the advance bill was paid and the bank guarantees given against the bill were released before the advance bill was reconciled.
A second consulting firm was also appointed in violation of government procurement rules, disregarding the drawings or designs provided by the first consulting firm.
They also failed to properly evaluate tenders in line with the Public Procurement Rules (PPR) 2008, despite evidence of abnormal price quotations and front-loading, according to the case statement.
