Probe launched against religious affairs ministry

Probe launched against joint secretary of Religious Affairs Ministry, Aftab Islam over Hajj residence scam.


Express November 08, 2010



A probe has been launched against the joint secretary of religious affairs ministry Aftab Islam over a Haj residence scam.

The bureaucrat is accused of renting buildings still under construction for around Rs260 million.

A three-member committee, formed on the directives of the prime minister, has launched an inquiry into the rates and reason for renting these buildings for pilgrims.

Earlier, the ministry had denied allegations of financial irregularities in the government’s Haj scheme.

Pilgrims who have gone for Haj through the government scheme are facing immense problems because of a shortage of accommodation.

Most of the buildings requisitioned by Haj administrators are five kilometres away from the Haram Sharif. However, according to the laws, accommodation cannot be more than two kilometres away.

Most of the pilgrims are living on footpaths and roads because of the Haj officials’ negligence.

The ministry asserted that buildings have been rented because nearby apartments were inhabitable.

Earlier this month, Prince Khalid bin Bandar bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, in a letter, accused the minister for religious affairs of embezzlement and urged the apex court to take action on the issue.

(Additional input from AGENCIES)

Published in The Express Tribune, November 8th, 2010.

COMMENTS (2)

Aftab Kenneth Wilson | 13 years ago | Reply We are a proud nation by not loosing No. One Position in all fields. So coooooool but with wry smile.
Asrar Ahmed | 13 years ago | Reply There are no words to condemn this act of Ministry of Religious Affairs.What were the Minister and The Secretary doing?. sleeping or........................... Severe punishment should be given to who ever is found involved or negligent. Enough.....................is enough
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