Hajj scam 2013: Parliamentary panel finds misappropriation in Hajj quotas

Recommends suspension of quota.


Riazul Haq June 30, 2014
Hajj scam 2013: Parliamentary panel finds misappropriation in Hajj quotas

ISLAMABAD:


The National Assembly Sub-Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony has found gross misappropriation and violations of the Hajj Policy 2012 in the allocation of quotas to hajj group organisers (HGOs). The sub-committee recommended suspending the quotas of 19 companies.


A four-member sub-committee was set up by the Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony on March 20. The sub-committee — chaired by Pirzada Syed Imran Ahmad Shah and Sahibzada Faizul Hassan, Malik Abdul Ghaffar Dogar and Shagufta Jumani as its members — held five meetings on the issue.

The sub-committee recently submitted its report with the Religious Affairs secretary and sought thorough scrutiny of the companies, documents and other requirements under the Hajj Policy.

According to the report, available with The Express Tribune, the quota allocated to 19 HGOs was not only against the provisions of the policy, but also in violation of written criteria communicated by the ministry to the accountancy firms.

Some applicants, despite having shown no experience in the application form, were still awarded marks for experience.

The CA firms had also informed the committee that they had not verified the documents of applicant HGOs provided by the ministry from the Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) or the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), nor had they carried out any physical inspection of the applicants’ offices.

The committee also found that ministry staff passed the buck on to the accountants when the time came to take responsibility. “The ministry had forwarded the documents of applicant HGOs to the third party without checking all the requirements and accuracy in documentation,” the report says.

While examining the accountants’ assessment reports, it was found that many places flagrant violations were committed by HGOs which the ministry failed to identify. “Such things account to concealment of facts and malignance, leading to a completely flawed evaluation. Except for four companies, all others were grossly deficient in meeting the prescribed criteria.”

The report further stated that at least one out of the 19 companies, which was granted 80 per cent marks and was ranked 14th in merit at national level, did not possess or attach any reliable documents. At least four companies had appended fake experience documents from existing HGOs or irrelevant tour operators. Similarly, six companies were deficient in the required documentation, while two had manipulated their performance statistics to secure a higher band of marks.

The committee members also observed that in more than 50 per cent of cases, clearance of tax liabilities was not been established by the companies.

Surprisingly, the body found that some critical provisions of the Hajj Policy 2012 appeared to have been deleted in the Hajj Policy 2013 without giving background or plausible reasons for such a move.

Recommendations

The sub-committee recommended that the quotas allocated to 19 companies in 2013 may be suspended until proper evaluation of the applications and documents in accordance with the standards laid down in Hajj Policy 2012 is done. It was suggested that the documentation of these companies be scrutinised and assessed again to establish a fresh merit list based on competent analysis, while the authenticity of the award given by evaluators. The parliamentary sub-committee recommended that the SECP, FBR and SBP should verify relevant documents and declare defaulters ineligible. To avoid such incidents in future, it was suggested that awards given by any third party must be critically-analysed for quality control and regulatory compliance.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 30th, 2014.

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