ISLAMABAD - Executive Board Meeting (EBM) of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Tuesday decided to authorise inquiries against three former FBR chairmen for awarding contract of FBR’s computerisation to a foreign company. The EBM was held under the chairmanship of NAB Chief Qamar Zaman Chaudhry at the NAB Headquarters.
The EBM decided to authorise five inquiries. The first inquiry was authorised against Salman Saddique, ex-chairman FBR, Abdullah Yousuf, ex-chairman FBR, Ali Arshad Hakeem, ex-chairman FBR, Mian Azhar Majeed, ex-collector Customs, Iqbal Muneeb, Member PACCs Team and Ashir Azeem Gill, Additional Collector Customs. In this case, the accused persons were alleged for corruption and corrupt practices and misuse of authority in award of computerisation of FBR to a foreign company “M/s Agility”. This caused a loss of $11 million and claim of $650 million by Agility. The award of contract and subsequent faulty working of the contractual firm led to huge losses in the clearance of custom goods at the Karachi port.
Second inquiry was authorised against M/s Tandlianwala Sugar Mills (Pvt) Ltd & Others. In this case, the accused persons were alleged for suspicious transaction of $6,922,736. Third inquiry was authorised against M/S Al-Abid Silk Mills Limited, referred by the State Bank of Pakistan in pursuance to section 31-D of the NAO, 1999 regarding willful loan default of Rs479.893 million.
Fourth Inquiry was authorised against M/s ACE Securities (Pvt) Ltd, a brokerage house on charges of fraud, embezzlement, corrupt practices and cheating public at large. In this case, the accused persons Haroon Iqbal, CEO and Iqbal Ismail, Director were alleged for fraud, embezzlement, corrupt practices and cheating public at large and caused a loss of Rs236 million.
Fifth inquiry was authorised against Najum Saqib, Contractor of Hashmi Traders in a case against authorities of Education Department Balochistan, Government of Balochistan and others regarding misappropriation of funds allocated for purchase of furniture, reading/writing material, science equipments and repair of Schools/Colleges of Balochistan during FY 2010-2011. The accused Najum Saqib, Contractor of Hashmi Traders caused a loss of Rs2.118 million to the national exchequer.
The EBM also decided to authorise investigation against Arshad Farooq Faheem, ex-chairman DPC, Dr Muhammad Ali, ex-member Pricing DPC and others officers/officials Ministry of National Regulations and Services.
In this case, the accused persons were alleged for increase in prices of drugs illegally. Status of Head of Drugs Pricing Committee (DPC) of DRAP was lowered from secretary to joint secretary through a notification issued by Secretary Ministry of National Regulations & Services Division, (NRSD) Islamabad. The joint secretary is also chairman of Registration Board. This dual appointment is a violation of section 11-A of Drugs Act, 1976 being conflict of interest formation of sub-committee was illegal and increase in prices of drugs was also illegal.
The EBM decided further inquiry in a case against Dr Nazir Mughal, ex-vice chancellor University of Sindh Jamshoro, Mohammad Nawaz Narejo, ex-registrar University of Sindh, Jamshoro and Mohammad Hussian Shaikh, ex-registrar University of Sindh, Jamshoro and others. In this case, the accused persons were alleged for misuse of authority and embezzlement of university funds and directed DG NAB Karachi to submit report within six weeks.
The EBM approved application of Voluntary Return (VR) of three ex- officials named Abdul Qayyum, Niamatullah Khan and Muhammad Tariq and 1 ex-contractor named Saeed Ahmad who opted for VR and have also submitted their pay orders in a case against authorities of Education Department Balochistan, Government of Balochistan and others.
The EBM in inquiry against ex-management of PTVC and others regarding illegal appointment of accused Yousaf Baig Mirza as MD PTVC, appointments/promotions of different individuals on different posts in PTVC by Yousaf Baig Mirza as MD PTVC, award of contract for purchase of IT equipment in violation of PPRA Rules, 2004, decided no further action due to lack of incriminating evidence.