A. H. M. Farhaduzzaman, Chief Engineer (Dredging) of the Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority (BIWTA), has reportedly faced multiple allegations of corruption, acquisition of illicit assets, and misappropriation of project funds. Among these allegations is a corruption case in which the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) reportedly filed a charge sheet. However, the supporting documents, the latest status of the case, and the accused official’s response need to be verified before the allegations can be treated as established facts.

According to the allegations, in 2019, the ACC filed a charge sheet against A. H. M. Farhaduzzaman, claiming to have found evidence linking him to bribery. It was also alleged that the bribe money had been received through a bank account belonging to his mother-in-law. The current status of the case, the specific information contained in the charge sheet, and whether any final judicial decision has been issued remain matters requiring confirmation.

Meanwhile, sources have reportedly alleged that Farhaduzzaman received three promotions while the corruption case was pending and now serves as BIWTA’s Chief Engineer (Dredging). Questions have also been raised about the progress of the case and whether the applicable rules and regulations were followed in granting these promotions.

Questions Over Asset Acquisition
Allegations have also been raised regarding the acquisition of substantial assets, reportedly held in Farhaduzzaman’s name or through other individuals. These reportedly include land in Mirpur, Dhaka, valued at several crore taka; two plots measuring eight kathas each in Purbachal; and an apartment measuring approximately 2,400 square feet in Nayapaltan.

Additionally, allegations have been made that his wife owns approximately 400 decimals of land in Patgram, Lalmonirhat, and that a five-storey building has been constructed in Lalmonirhat Sadar in her name.

Those making the allegations further claim that Farhaduzzaman and his family members possess assets worth more than Tk 500 million, or Tk 50 crore, in their names or through other arrangements. The allegations also refer to potentially irregular transactions in bank accounts belonging to the couple.

However, the actual ownership of these properties, their purchase prices, the sources of the funds used to acquire them, and the nature of the reported bank transactions cannot be established without reliable documentary evidence or official statements from the relevant authorities.

Allegations of Project Fund Misappropriation
Farhaduzzaman has also been accused of involvement in the alleged misappropriation of hundreds of crores of taka from the Bangladesh Regional Inland Water Transport Project-1 (BIWTP-1), which is reportedly funded by the World Bank.

According to the complainants, the Ministry of Shipping conducted an investigation and found evidence supporting the allegations, subsequently submitting a report recommending necessary action.

However, the full contents of the alleged investigation report, the specific amount identified in connection with the alleged misappropriation, the roles of the individuals concerned, and the measures taken to implement the recommendations require independent verification.

Questions Over Accountability and Administrative Action
Those raising the allegations claim that no effective action against Farhaduzzaman has been made publicly evident despite the reported complaints and investigations. Instead, they point out that he has received promotions and continues to hold an important position within the authority.

The situation highlights the importance of transparent administrative procedures, impartial investigations, and accountability in public institutions. The relevant authorities should provide a documented explanation of the allegations and disclose information about any actions taken in accordance with the law.

At the same time, it is essential that the accused official be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and defend himself. The existence of a complaint, an investigation, or a charge sheet does not, by itself, establish guilt. Any conclusion must be based on verified evidence and the findings of the competent judicial or investigative authorities.