Staff Reporter :
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has said the available evidence “clearly and unequivocally” indicates British MP Tulip Siddiq’s involvement in facilitating and supporting corruption under Bangladeshi law, dismissing claims that she had no connection to the offenses for which she was convicted in absentia.
“Considering all the facts collectively, we are confident that they clearly and unequivocally demonstrate Siddiq’s ongoing participation in aiding and abetting corruption under Bangladeshi law. Given these facts and circumstances, there is no justification for suggesting she was uninvolved or innocent of the charges against her,” the ACC said in a statement on Tuesday, signed by Deputy Director Akhtarul Islam.
The commission noted that recent media reports questioning the trial and sentencing of Tulip Siddiq-niece of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and daughter of Sheikh Rehana-necessitated a thorough review, prompting a re-examination of all prosecution materials related to the cases.
According to the ACC, the allegations focus on the unlawful allocation of state-owned land to Siddiq’s aunt, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, her mother Sheikh Rehana, and their family members.
“In one pending case, Siddiq herself appears to have received an additional plot during her aunt’s tenure as head of government,” the statement said.
The ACC noted that Sheikh Hasina, Sheikh Rehana, and their relatives, including Siddiq, fled to avoid prosecution.
“Of the three cases, one trial has concluded. Siddiq was found guilty of influencing her aunt to secure land for her mother and siblings. In Special Case No. 18/2025 at Special Tribunal No. 5, prosecutors alleged that Siddiq ‘influenced, persuaded, and encouraged her aunt to misuse her position’ to illegally allocate land to her family.”
“Thirty-two witnesses provided testimony in the case,” the ACC added.
The statement highlighted that multiple witnesses testified under oath that Siddiq, who maintained a close relationship with her aunt, leveraged her influence to obtain the land allocations. This, combined with circumstantial evidence of land allotments in the names of Siddiq, her mother, and siblings, demonstrated her “deep involvement” in the unlawful process.
The ACC emphasized that such actions constitute abetment under Penal Code Sections 161, 163, 164, 165(Ka), 201, 217, 218, 409, 420, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The statement also mentioned that Siddiq personally obtained a Gulshan plot-CWN (A)-27, later Plot No. 05, Block NE(A), now Flat No. B/201, House Nos. 5A/5B (renumbered 115 and 11B), Road 71-by exploiting her influence over the then-prime minister.
“These are not insignificant parcels of land,” the ACC noted, describing them as highly valuable plots in one of Dhaka’s most expensive areas, initially meant for public housing but instead used to benefit individuals close to the former prime minister.
The ACC further stated that Siddiq has been associated with multiple London properties acquired through offshore companies, raising “a fundamental question: how do public servants amass resources to purchase multiple properties in two major global capitals?”
“While we sought answers, unfortunately, she was tried in absentia,” the statement added.
Responding to Siddiq’s claim that she could not defend herself, the ACC dismissed it as “simply untrue,” asserting that she had ample opportunity to attend the proceedings or appoint legal counsel but chose not to.
