Tulip Siddiq ‘used fake signature to transfer flat to sister'
Former Labour minister Tulip Siddiq allegedly transferred a flat to her sister using a document with a forged signature, Bangladesh's anti-corruption authorities have claimed.
Investigators at the country's Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) also allege that Ms Siddiq – the niece of ousted Bangladeshi dictator Sheikh Hasina – illegally acquired the flat in Dhaka's Gulshan area.
The claim is part of a wider investigation into the alleged unlawful allocation of state-owned land to former prime minister Hasina, her children, and close relatives.
Investigators claim Ms Siddiq made the transfer to her sister, Azmina Siddiq Ruponti, to become eligible for a 10-katha (7,260 sq feet) plot in the Purbachal New Town Project, which she later obtained. Under Bangladesh's Allotment of Land Rules, applicants for the scheme must not own any residential property or land in Dhaka.
Investigators also allege that she hid the property from her income tax records from 2015 onwards.
The Heba document – an Islamic legal instrument for gifting property – listed Ms Siddiq as the donor and Ms Ruponti as the recipient. It states Ms Siddiq willingly transferred full ownership, title, and parking space of the flat on the second floor of a building in Gulshan Residential Model Town to her sister in June 2015.
However, Supreme Court lawyer Gazi Sirazul Islam, whose name appeared as the notary on the document, denied any involvement. 'I never notarised the document. The signatures on the deed don't match with mine and I don't know Tulip or her sister Azmina personally,' Islam told local media.
The ownership of the flat made Ms Siddiq's sister also ineligible for a Purbachal plot, said ACC chairman Dr Mohammad Abdul Momen.
'To circumvent regulations, Ruponti allegedly took possession of the Gulshan flat without formally assuming ownership, ensuring that her plot allotment remained undisputed,' he said.
The ACC, which has powers to prosecute as well as investigate corruption cases, will now present its charges against Ms Siddiq to the court, whose approval is required before the case proceeds to prosecution – a step largely seen as a mere formality.
The ACC alleges that 60 katha (43,560 sq feet) of government land in the Purbachal New Town project – a large residential development on Dhaka's outskirts – was illegally allocated to Hasina and her family.
The ACC has launched a number of investigations into Hasina, including a number where Ms Siddiq has been named.
The most serious case accuses Hasina and other family members including Ms Siddiq of being involved in the £4 billion embezzlement of funds from a nuclear power plant deal with Russia.
'Full extent of misconduct' to come
'This is merely a glimpse of the larger picture,' Dr Momen said. 'The ongoing investigations are expected to reveal the full extent of financial misconduct tied to the former prime minister and her close relatives.
'Siddiq should have been ineligible for a plot under the land allocation scheme due to her ownership of a flat in Gulshan. However, she and her family carried out the notary fraud to conceal the property's true ownership to secure the prime land.'
Ms Siddiq, whose short-lived position as Treasury minister had included combating corruption, had referred herself in January after weeks of questions over her use of properties in London linked to her aunt's political party.
Hasina, 77, who had been the longest-serving prime minister of Bangladesh, is now in India, having been ousted last August following her brutal response to protesters.
During her tenure, it was alleged that opponents were attacked, arrested and secretly imprisoned as the regime carried out extrajudicial killings.
A spokesman for Ms Siddiq said: 'Absolutely no evidence has been presented for these allegations. Tulip Siddiq has not been contacted on these matters and totally denies the claims.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
31 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it
Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... For those of us who have taken the trouble to engage with Reform UK's personnel and their activities – so we might understand their concerns, ambitions and the motives behind them – the performance of Britain's disruptor party at last Thursday's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election did not come as a surprise. Labour's victory was a shock because the SNP – and John Swinney in particular – had itself promoted the narrative of a Labour collapse as part of its campaigning tactics. To make this outcome appear especially credible the Labour Party itself had clearly switched into damage limitation mode by protecting its candidate from himself. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the end the vote delivered a tight three-way contest with only 1471 votes between the Labour, SNP and Reform candidates. With the Conservative candidate coming fourth with 1621 votes, never again should Rusell Findlay suggest voting Reform will result in an SNP victory. That sort of unjustified entitlement will be the death of Conservative or other pro-UK parties when Reform is clearly a serious contender. Let voters decide for themselves on the true merits of a candidate rather than be shepherded to vote against competitors. The prospect now lies ahead that the SNP may not form an administration after next year's Holyrood election and the possibility of genuine change might be possible. Accepting we have a proportional voting system at Holyrood I am not in favour of parties trying to build coalitions before they have been elected because it reduces choice for voters. Let the electorate decide which parties it wishes to reward for good reasons after which the elected representatives can take it from there. I am, however, in favour of parties giving serious consideration to policies that accentuate the common ground they might have with each other so that when attempting to build an administration, be it a full-blooded coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement, it is achieved in a positive and practical manner that makes good government possible. One of the issues that Scotland has to face up to is that it has its spending priorities all wrong. There are very serious faults with the quality and supply of many of our public services and the lack of funds finding their way to where they can make the most difference cannot be solved by taxing or borrowing more. Both of these possibilities are already stretched to the limit – so it requires changing the priorities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ideas about how this might be done are again up for debate thanks to the election of President Javier Milei of Argentina and President Trump gaining a second term after the Biden hiatus. Both have taken a radical approach of asking hard questions about the justification of spending and making sweeping changes that involve not just trimming budgets but closing down some operations that are now considered to be unnecessary or provide duplication. This has been characterised by Trump's creation of a Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short. Now in England, where Reform UK has gained control of five County Councils, local doge projects are being established. In Derbyshire decisions are being taken in quick order to start by example by closing down committees and removing generous sinecures that provide allowances and expenses to councillors. The amounts are initially relatively small but they signal an intent to the public that councillors feathering their nests by establishing talking shops and generating paperchases must end. This can only make the acceptance of rationalising departments and making superfluous posts redundant easier to deliver. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But a word of warning. Making changes at the margins is not going to be enough. Simply cutting back on the number of administrators is not the solution to bad resource allocation. What is required is to accept some functions are not the business of the state, be they delivered by unaccountable quangos and agencies, local councils or legislative governments. Abandoning functions that are not seen as vital necessities will be required. Scotland undoubtedly needs its own form of DOGE to go through the lush spending of the Scottish Parliament – all while the homeless are without shelter, drug-dependents are without rehab, classrooms are without teachers, pregnant women are without maternity wards and convicted criminals are released because we are without enough prisons. The place to begin is to take more seriously the insightful reports of the Auditor General who reveals with disturbing regularity the poor decisions that have been taken which cost us millions. When we add millions together we get closer to saving billions – all of which can be used to reduce Scotland's taxes to at least the same level as England's so we can encourage the enterprise that will create genuine sustainable prosperity. By stripping the SNP's unnecessary spending vital services can be protected and improved. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It also needs a huge change in attitude – and it must start at the top. We need a Scottish Government to always think about the public pound when committing to defend its policies through the courts. The fact that defending the Scottish Government case in the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes a woman should have run up a bill of £170,000 should be universally condemned. The legal costs that started with Nicola Sturgeon and passed through the hands of Humza Yousaf and John Swinney should be paid by them. It was, after all, an action designed to save their political reputations and against at least half of Scotland's people. Likewise, any spending on the whole panoply of independence and grievance mongering or political hobbyhorses should be open to challenge. The turnaround of the Argentinian economy has led the once-defaulting basket-case economy to higher GDP growth, falling inflation and improving and a declining poverty rate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland has a great deal to do to correct 18 years of SNP misrule all the more reason that being more realistic about what can be afforded must be as starting point.
New Statesman
33 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Labour's unlikely strategy for beating Reform
Photo by Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images It's April. It's a few weeks to the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Organisers know it's tight. Activists know it's tight. Some estates and a few villages are looking good for Labour. Others are looking dreadful. The Labour campaign is searching for a winning strategy. Keir Starmer is not to be found. Labour threw a lot of strategies at the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. But one stays with me. As the activists piled in for their morning briefings before taking to the doors, the advice was simple, and surprising: 'Don't say Reform.' Instead, campaigners were encouraged to ask what voters on the doorsteps thought of Nigel Farage himself. But why elevate Farage, some wondered. Why even mention his name? Activists discarded the advice immediately, adamant they knew better. But others saw the sense. Counterintuitively, it's a sound strategy. And there is public data to talk about it. Reform is polling in the lead right now. And the local elections prove it: the party didn't just win the coastal region of Lincolnshire, or Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, it won in what were traditional Con-Lab battlegrounds. Projecting what these numbers would mean in a General Election is a fool's errand. First past the post is not made for four/five party politics. So Reform could win as few as 150 seats in the House of Commons. Or as many as 350. That's where we are right now. But Nigel Farage, who polls better than anyone for voter favourability, is floundering on one key metric. He trails as a prime minister in waiting. Britain needs Reform? Yes, say most voters. But does Britain need Farage? There is surprising reluctance. Survation and YouGov have both done the polling and while Reform has party poll leads, Keir Starmer still – somehow – leads the country as the public's preferred prime minister. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This all exposes something critical: Farage struggles on the question of officialdom. He is the Wat Tyler of our time. He speaks for the many. He speaks for the rabble. But the many do not see him becoming one of the chosen few. Did the peasantry wish to elevate Mr Tyler to Kingship? Which brings us to the Labour strategy. Farage is both a strength and a curse for Reform. The more the voters and media take Reform and Farage seriously, the more the voters will have to give consideration to the rising reality that Reform and Farage may very well form the next government. This is a weak point for the party. 'Don't say Reform. Say Farage.' Reform is a sentiment. It arouses sympathy. Farage has his fans. But he has his detractors. Prompting him on the doorstep could concentrate voters' minds in a way 'it's us or Reform' doesn't. 'It's this government or reform' – the results write themselves. But 'it's us or Farage' – now that's a strategy. [See more: Nigel Farage chases the Welsh dragon] Related
New Statesman
33 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Reform needs Zia Yusuf
After the turmoil created by the resignation of Zia Yusuf as chairman of Reform UK, and then his return 48 hours later in a new role, the risibly titled 'leader of the DOGE unit', Nigel Farage's anti-system party started the week determined to regain control. While Yusuf was interviewed in the coveted 8.10am slot on the BBC's Today programme on 9 June, Farage was in Wales. There he delivered a speech, fusing right and left populism, aimed at disaffected Labour voters. He took credit for Labour's U-turn on restoring the winter fuel allowance to most pensioners, accused Keir Starmer of being in a 'blind panic' about Reform (he had previously boasted that he was living rent free in the prime minister's head), said he would like to see the return of coal mines to Wales and pledged to reopen the Port Talbot steel blast furnaces. All in a morning's work. As the so-called Conservative and Unionist party withers in Scotland and Wales, Reform, dismissed as an English nationalist party, is supplanting it; without any significant infrastructure or organisation in Scotland, Reform improbably won 26 per cent of the vote in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election last week, which Labour took from the SNP. John Swinney, the SNP leader, had declared before the vote that Labour could not win. Don't follow his racing tips. Support for Labour has collapsed in Wales, and, according to the latest YouGov poll, Reform is second behind Plaid Cymru in the contest for next year's Senedd elections. The mood in the old industrial heartlands of Wales is no different from the red wall areas of England: one of mass disaffection. Starmer's advisers believe the next general election will be a straight contest between Labour and Reform and it's one they think they can win, not least because they expect progressives, as well as crypto Liberal Democrats, to fall into line when confronted by the prospect of a Farage premiership. That might turn out to be another progressive delusion. The greater challenge for Farage, as framed by Dominic Cummings, who caricatures Reform as being little more than 'Nigel Farage and an iPhone', is this: can the party attract elite talent? They were once antagonists, but Cummings is now one of the most astute analysts of Farageism. 'Does he want to find people to be chancellor etc who are better than the old parties?' Cummings wrote in a long Substack post, prefaced by the obligatory blizzard of quotations from Bismarck, Churchill, Nietzsche, Mao, Thucydides and James Marriott. 'Can he exploit the surging energy for new politics among the young, can he hoist a sail and let that force blow him along to greater victories over his enemies? Or does he blow the chance and let that energy be captured by others?' When I spent a day with Farage on the Essex coast last summer as he campaigned in the general election, he told me, as I wrote at the time, that he believed he had done more than any other politician to defeat the far right in Britain. 'If you think I'm bad enough, imagine what might come after me,' he said. 'But while I'm here that person will not emerge.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Farge is adept at simultaneously deflecting and attracting the nativist right, which is why his party is split. Rupert Lowe, a boorish Monday Club-style reactionary now sitting as an independent in the Commons having been banished from Reform, represented a hardline faction that is obsessed with Islam. That faction is closer, in spirit and intent, than Farage can tolerate to European far-right parties such as the Sweden Democrats and the Afd in Germany. I was reporting from a Reform rally in Quendon, near Saffron Walden, in Essex, in February, when Lowe demanded the deportation of rape gangs 'and members of their families'. He later posted on Facebook that he had been 'instructed by Farage's team, sanctioned by him, to remove a call to deport all complicit foreign national family members'. He claimed he was being censored. Shortly afterwards, he was out, having also clashed with Yusuf. Farage wants to position Reform as a mainstream centre-right alternative to the Conservatives, but he also wants 'to move the needle' on what counts as acceptable political discourse. Angela Jenkyns, the new Reform mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, said something similar when I asked her about her recent comments about putting asylum seekers in tents. 'I was talking about illegal migrants, not asylum seekers,' she told me while conceding that some of her statements were deliberately outrageous. 'You've misquoted me there. But it should be like in France, a contained area [of tents] – look at the stats, look at the people coming through. The majority are males, economic migrants.… It's about fairness for the British people. I'd never say that about asylum seekers. The tent thing was intended to be provocative to make the public realise that people have had enough. People should not be put up in hotels when British people are struggling to pay their taxes. I know I'm a glutton for my own punishment, but the thing is, I always know what I'm saying.' Sarah Pochin also knew what she was saying when she asked her question in the Commons about banning the burqa. Yusuf, who has endured repugnant racial abuse online, was correct to call the question 'dumb', on multiple levels. Why prioritise such an issue with your first question as an MP when it was not even party policy? The answer is that Pochin, who won the Runcorn and Helsby by-election, was cynically, opportunistically (choose the most appropriate adverb) 'laying down a marker' as one her allies put it to me. This is who she is and what she wants. In his BBC interview with Yusuf, who is a British Muslim of Sri Lankan heritage, Nick Robinson suggested that he provided 'cover' for Farage. The implication was that he was a useful idiot. That is one view. Another is that as a Goldman Sachs alumnus who earned as much as £30 million from the sale of a business, and has since demonstrated his competence by professionalising the party, Zia Yusuf has the kind of experience Reform must attract if is to become anything more than an anti-system protest movement. That was the real reason Farage was desperate not to lose him. [See more: Will Labour's winter fuel U-turn work?] Related
