Moudud was originally detained on the charge of having alcoholic beverages in his case. And has been held on this ludicrous charge since April 2007. Two further charges have been made against him in the last few weeks: Amassing Wealth beyond his means, and being involved in the NIKO case. On the first charge, it is again ludicrous. No firm evidence is put forward as to how the leading Commercial Barrister in Bangladesh (i.e. Moudud himself) should not have earned and declared his income. On the NIKO case this is even more ludicrous as here there are no witnesses. The present military regime, acting through its fig leaf government, simply wants to find Moudud guilty by association.

Below please find a reasoned argument written from jail by Moudud himself in May 2008 pointing out how ridiculous is the case against Moudud:

Summary on NIKO

1. Moudud Ahmed and Associates (MAA) as Legal Adviser of
NIKO.

1.1 NIKO Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. (NIKO) engaged Moudud Ahmed and Associates (MAA) as their Legal Adviser by an agreement on 23 March 2000 with effect from 1 January 2000 (Document-1).

1.2 NIKO terminated the Agreement by a letter dated 1 December 2000 with effect from 31 December 2000 (Document-2).

1.3 MAA accepted the termination of the Agreement by a letter dated 10 December 2000 and sent the outstanding invoice (Document-3). The relationship between MAA and NIKO ended on 31 December 2000 and since then there has never been any correspondence or connection between them

1.4 During this period of one year, January to December 2000, NIKO never sought nor MAA rendered any opinion on the Frame Work of Understanding (on the question whether Chattak East would be considered as a part of Chattak) or on the Swiss Challenge system (whether tenders were to be followed or not).

2. Allegation of loss of Tk. 27,407 crores on two principal issues.
2.1 The First one, the government was wrong in including Chattak East as a part of the abandoned marginal gas field given to NIKO-Bapex Joint Venture Exploration.

2.2 The Second one, the government was wrong in abandoning the Swiss Challenge system in allowing NIKO-Bapex Joint Venture to operate.

3. Background of the Project:
3.1 BAPEX (Banglajdesh Petroleum Exploration Company Ltd.), a fully government owned unit entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with NIKO as a partner for the exploration of gas fields at Chattak, Kanta and Feni named as “Marginal and Non-producing Gas Fields”.

3.2 Before the JVA was signed 3 vital decisions were taken by the AL government between 1998 and 2001 (See fhe FIR and Charge Sheet against Sheikh Hasina and others).
A. In the absence of any Policy on abandoned or non-producing gas fields, the subject matter and the gas fields were defined by a guideline called “Procedure” for “Marginal and Non-producing Gas Fields” in which the unexplored area of Chattak (East) was included as a part of Chattak. In other words no distinction was made between Chattak (West) which was earlier explored and abandoned and the rest Chattak (East). The allegation is that due to inclusion of Chattak (East) given for exploration the state has incurred the loss mentioned above under the two governments. The above “Procedure” was approved by the Prime Minister of the previous government.

B. On the question of Swiss Challenge, a bidding practice, which was decided to follow at an earlier stage was changed later because no tender was considered necessary as it was a Joint Venture operation between NIKO and BAPEX, a state-owned company. This exclusion of any bidding procedure i.e., Swiss Challenge system was incorporated in a “Frame Work of Understanding (FOU) signed between the parties and approved by the Prime Minister of the previous government.

C. Once the above two instruments, binding on both the parties, were executed the draft of a Joint Venture Agreement between NIKO and Bangladesh Government represented by BAPFX was also approved by the Prime Minister of the previous government.

3.3 Based on the above agreements executed by both the parties the formality of executing the Joint Venture Agreement fell on the BNP government which was finally signed on 16.10.2033.

3.4 Both the governments supported the project in national interest. These gas fields were left unused and abandoned for decades and no foreign company was interested in making any investment in such areas. Involvement of BAPEX, a government owned outfit with Bangladeshi experts to work and earn for the state without any investment of the government was the prime consideration in encouraging the Joint Venture to operate requiring millions of dollars of foreign investment in terms of technology and equipments which NIKO was to provide. The terms of payments and gas sale price offered by NIKO were found to be attractive and the nation was expected to derive enormous benefit from the projects.

3.5 The issues of the terms of the project and the so-called “loss” came to limelight after an explorational blowout happened at Chattak Gas Field in January 2005. The government blamed NIKO for their negligence and operational methods and the dispute is being settled in accordance with the terms of the Joint-Venture Agreement.

4. Role of the Ministry of Law:
4.1 Under the Rules of Business of the government the Ministry of Law is to advice all the Ministries on any legal matter referred to them.

4.2 Like any other Ministry, this Ministry also a detail organogram assigning the distribution of work different nature of work to the relevant sections. There are designated senior officials in the Ministry of Law to deal with rendering of opinions sought by others Ministries. When a matter for any opinion comes in a precise summary form to this Ministry the file goes to the particular section and they examine the papers, seek further clarifications from the relevant Ministry if necessary and finally in consultation with the other experts prepare the opinion on the specific questions raised. After the opinion is approved and signed by all the officials starting from the Senior Assistant Secretary the Secretary of the Ministry it is placed before the State Minister, if any, and finally at the very end it is placed to the Minister for his signature.

4.3 The NIKO matter was also handled in the same standard routine manner and more than one opinion on this issue was given by the Ministry following the same procedure. The opinion given was that of the Ministry and not of the Minister alone as alleged in the FIR and Charge Sheet. The decision was a collective decision signed by the Minister as the last person after being signed by all others including the Secretary.

4.4 The opinion in question was given to uphold the principles of continuity of the terms of the agreements already committed involving 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 and at the same time protect the image of the country in maintaining the government commitments for the continuity of the terms of the Project.

4.5 The Ministry of Law in their opinion reaffirmed that (1) Chattak (East) had to be considered as a part of Chattak as a whole as it was laid so in Exhibit A of the Frame Work of Understanding (FOU) and the government “Procedure” approved by the last government and (2) application of the optional provision of Swiss Challenge for bidding purposes was waived by inserting Clause 5.05 in the MOU executed by the last government. So the opinion was given on the specific questions raised by the concerned Ministry beyond which the Ministry of Law had no authority to travel. No opinion was sought as to whether the terms of the MOU or the government “Procedure” were good for the country or not. The terms of any contract or agreement are decided by the concerned Ministry and their counterparts and not by the Ministry of Law. At no stage neither of the two Prime Ministers nor to the Ministry of Law it was ever mentioned in any summary that the nation would incur a loss of Tk. 27407 crores if the work was awarded to NIKO-BAPEX Joint Venture or it was possible for any Prime Minister or any person to predict whether a blowout would occur or not.




5. The so-called opinion of the Moudud Ahmed and Associates
(MAA).
5.1 As already mentioned, the relationship with NIKO as a client had totally ceased in December 2000 and so there was no question of giving them any opinion in 2002 or 2003.

5.2 Just before joining the government I resigned from the Chamber on October 8, 2001 and had no professional connection with my law firm for the entire period of 5 years although it continued in my name for the benefit of the existing clients, lawyers and staff.

5.3 For the first time I came to know about the so-called opinion given under the letter-head of MAA dated 27.02.2003 in a scandalous news item in Prothom Alo on 29.07.2005. The surreptitious “opinion” was found to be concocted and in a computerized forged letterhead under the forged signature of Mr. Azizul Haq, Advocate. The “opinion” was given without addressing any one nor it carried any reference of the client nor any reference number of the law firm nor it was signed on behalf of MAA. It was done only to malign me and take advantage of the name of the Law Firm for business purposes. I immediately protested against the news item and Mr. Azizul Haq also protested in writing addressing Prothom Alo that he never had signed any such opinion. The news item of Prothom Alo, letters of Mr. Azizul Haq dated 28 and 29.07.2005 addressing Prothom Alo, the so-called “legal opinion” and my representation are enclosed as (Document 4, 5,6,7, and 8.

5.4 Having found no other case against me for last 13 months keeping me in jail my name has been added in the case on the ground that NIKO was once my client, which had nothing to do with the opinion given by the Ministry of Law. But it is done only to show that there is now a case against me particularly to foreign leaders. Most interesting is that in the charge-sheet no witness has been named nor any documentary evidence has been adduced against me! An application for quashing the proceedings against me will be filed in the Supreme Court as soon as all the papers are available.

6. COMMENTS:
6.1 The allegations made in the FIR and Charge Sheet do not disclose any criminal offence under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.

6.2 No criminal offence has been disclosed against nor has been committed by any of the Prime Ministers not to speak of the Law Ministers who only endorsed a legal opinion rendered by the Ministry.

6.3 The allegations and calculation of losses are based on surmises, presumptions, hypothesis and wild imaginations.

6.4 The cases are filed for political victimization and harassment.

“No documents are sent”