AEDB management accused of Rs19m misappropriation


Shahbaz Rana July 17, 2010

ISLAMABAD: A rare scandal has been unearthed according to which the discretionary powers of a former caretaker prime minister provided a golden opportunity to a bunch of retired air force and army officers, resulting in a loss of over Rs19 million to the national exchequer in the process of hiring office accommodation.

According to a fact-finding report prepared by the Alternate Energy Development Board, former caretaker prime minister Muhammadmian Soomro eased rules during his short tenure, allowing the then AEDB management to get office space in a posh area of the federal capital.

In February 2008, Soomro allowed the hiring of the house with a “covered area of 16,865 square feet” at Rs35.64 per square foot against a ceiling of Rs10 per square foot, a difference of Rs25 or Rs421,625 per month over and above the official ceiling. The move resulted in a loss of  over Rs14 million. The building is still being used by the AEDB.

The report also showed that the then AEDB CEO Air Marshal (retd) Shahid Hamid had actually misled the premier. According to the building’s unattested drawings provided by the owner, the covered area was only 13,516 square feet, resulting in Rs4.7 million extra to be paid to the house owner on this account only.

Although rules had been relaxed on Feb 1, 2008, the AEDB management had entered into an agreement with the owner on Dec 31, 2007, and occupied the house on Jan 7, 2008.

A senior AEDB official said that four retired PAF officers, who at that time were running the board’s affairs, negotiated the deal with the house owner, and allegedly received kickbacks. “There is no record available who negotiated the rent with the owner, except intimation letters by the then Secretary AEDB Brig (retd) Dr Nasim A Khan,” states the report.

The official said that according to the measurements, the covered area was, in fact, not more than 10,000 square feet, adding that the owner’s claim about the covered area being 13,516 square feet was also incorrect.

The official said the building had been hired on unusual terms. Despite the refusal of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, the then management paid a year’s rent in advance and deposited a two-month security. The management had also agreed to raise rent 10 per cent annually, instead of it being increased after three years.

The office of the Auditor-General of Pakistan took notice of the embezzlements in the AEDB between 2003 and 2008. A senior officer of the audit department told The Express Tribune that a comprehensive audit report had been submitted to the Auditor-General, which would soon be submitted before the president.

He said the matter was recommended to the Federal Investigation Agency for inquiry. “There is some pressure to close the case,” the official said.

The AEDB official said that the ministry of water and power was all out to save the skin of those who were involved and the ministry’s secretary wanted to conduct the inquiry by an official of his own ministry. The official spokesman was, however, not available for comments.

The report said that from January 2008 onwards, the government paid over Rs23.8 million in house rent. “Owner of the building was twice asked to provide the approved copy of the building map, but he provided (only an) unattested copy, which showed the covered area to be 13,516 square feet. The owner was not ready to renegotiate the rent (contending) that he rented the building on a monthly rent of Rs600,000, and not on the basis of per square foot.”

The report said that the Pakistan Public Works Department was also reluctant to issue a building measurement certificate in the absence of a CDA-approved building map.

“All this (has) established that the then management had malafide (intentions) in sealing the deal,” said the official.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 17th, 2010.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ