Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission on Tuesday said concerns raised in recent media reports about the trial and sentencing of British MP Tulip Siddiq, niece of Sheikh Hasina and daughter of Sheikh Rehana, require a clear, fact-based examination.
“Taken together, we believe these facts clearly and unequivocally demonstrate Tulip’s continued involvement in aiding and abetting corruption under the laws of Bangladesh,” said the ACC in its response to concerns raised over the trial and sentencing of Tulip Siddiq.
In light of these facts and circumstances, there is no basis to suggest that she was not involved in corruption or that she is innocent of the charges brought against her, said the graft watchdog body.
The ACC said they have conducted a thorough review of all prosecution materials filed against her by the ACC, an independent statutory body, according to the Chief Adviser’s press wing.
ACC’s response
From the case records, it appears that each matter involves allegations of corruption relating to the allotment of plots of land in the names of Tulip’s aunt (the deposed former prime minister Sheikh Hasina), her mother Sheikh Rehana, and her siblings and cousins.
In one of the pending cases, it further appears that Tulip herself was allotted a plot during her aunt’s tenure as head of government.
Of the three cases, the trial of the first has concluded, and Tulip has been found guilty of corruption for influencing her aunt to secure land for her mother and siblings.
In Special Case number 18 of 2025 before Special Tribunal number 5, the prosecution alleged, among other things, that Tulip influenced, coaxed, and persuaded her aunt to abuse her position in order to obtain plots for Tulip’s family.
The prosecution examined thirty-two witnesses. Several of these witnesses testified under oath that Tulip, known to be very close to her aunt, used her influence to obtain the allotments in question.
Their testimony, together with circumstantial evidence of plot allotments in the names of Tulip, her mother, and her siblings, indicates that she was deeply involved in the illegal process of securing plots – not only in the case already decided but also on other occasions.
Such conduct constitutes abetment of offences under Sections 161, 163, 164, 165(Ka), 201, 217, 218, 409, and 420 of the Penal Code, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
This circumstantial evidence is further strengthened by the fact that Tulip also obtained a plot (Plot number CWN (A)-27, later changed to Plot number 05, Block NE(A), Gulshan, Flat number B/201, House number 5A and 5B, now renumbered as 115 and 11B, Road number 71, Gulshan-2) by abusing the influence she wielded over her aunt, the deposed former prime minister.
These are not remote parcels of farmland but extremely valuable plots located in one of the most expensive areas of Dhaka.
The plots are large enough to accommodate substantial homes or compact apartment buildings.
This government-owned land had been earmarked primarily for housing intended to ease population pressures in Dhaka, but instead was allocated to those closest to the Prime Minister, thereby continuing to contribute to the accumulation of familial wealth.
Moreover, Tulip has been linked to five London properties purchased with the assistance of offshore companies. This raises a fundamental question: how do individuals in public service acquire the resources necessary to purchase multiple properties and parcels of land in two major world capitals?
“We were eager to hear answers to that question and others from Tulip, but unfortunately she was tried in absentia,” the ACC said.
As for Tulip’s assertion that she was unable to respond to the charges, that claim is simply untrue.
She was afforded the opportunity to attend the trial and present her case. She declined to attend or to be represented.
