Report on NIKO: Clarification

Moudud Ahmed, former law minister of the BNP-led four-party alliance government, gave a clarification to a report published on The Daily Star on April 7 headlined "NIKO signed bribery deals".

The Daily Star is not giving any reply to it as the clarification did not directly contest any part of our reporting. However, we're publishing the full text (unedited) of the clarification sent to us on April 8:

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

On 8 October prior to my joining the government on 10 October, as a matter of practice, I had resigned in writing from the Law Firm, Moudud Ahmed and Associates, and since then I had severed all my relationship with the Firm.

NIKO Resources Limited (NIKO) engaged the Law Firm as their Legal Advisor by an Agreement dated 23.3.2000 with effect from 1.1.2000. NIKO then terminated the said Agreement by letter dated 1.12.2000 with effect from 31.12.2000 and since then our Law Firm had no relationship with NIKO at all. (We have both the documents with us).

The so-called opinion dated 27.2.2003 without addressing any client or any reference number and allegedly signed by Mr. Azizul Haq as an advocate and not on behalf of the Law Firm is fictitious and forged. I have no knowledge about the so-called opinion dated 10.8.2003 which also must have been forged.

As soon as such kind of news came out in the 'Daily Prothom Alo' Mr. Azizul Haq immediately lodged a protest on the same day as reported in the 'Daily Prothom Alo' on 29.7.2005 stating that the opinion was not given by him and it was not his signature. Some vested quarters must have forged the letterhead of Moudud Ahmed and Associates.

With regard to the payments mentioned in your report one on 12 October 2000 and the other on 15 January 2002 were not paid to me but to the Law Firm against their bills for the work it had done for NIKO during the period of their Agreement. It is admitted by NIKO as published in your report saying that the amounts were paid for the job done before I became a Minister.

The opinions given by the Ministry of Law at various stages on the issue of NIKO under the Rules of Business of the government had nothing to do with the so-called opinion given by the forged signature of Mr. Azizul Haq. The substance of the opinion of the Ministry of Law was given to uphold the principles of continuity of the terms of international Agreements already committed to a foreign company approved by the Prime Minister of the last government. The Ministry of Law in their opinion only reconfirmed what the last government had committed in order to avoid any international litigation. The “Guidelines of the Procedure for Marginal and Non-Producing Gas Fields,” the “Framework of Understanding (FOU)” signed between the parties and the draft of the “Joint Venture Agreement” between NIKO and Bangladesh government represented by BAPEX, the three basic instruments, were already approved by the previous government.