Trackback URL
Download PDF Section 10 of the General Financial Rules says: “Every officer incurring or authorising expenditure from public funds should be guided by high standards of financial propriety.”
Its sub-section 3 says: “No authority should exercise its powers for sanctioning expenditure to pass an order which will be directly or indirectly to its own advantage.”
According to the general financial rules, the mother of all financial rules, the existing practice is that no authority should sanction any money for himself. I cannot sanction my own salary, no matter what my position is. Even the president or the prime minister cannot sanction his or her own salaries. Somebody else always does it under the authority of the laws.
Unfortunately, Speaker Jamiruddin Sircar has sanctioned money for himself by approving his own medical bill of nearly Tk 28 lakh. He has directly violated the basic standard of the financial propriety. He has sanctioned something, which directly went to his own benefit. The speaker, for that matter any government functionaries, can in no way do it.
The second point is that the speaker in his Thursday’s press statement claimed that he approved his medical bill under the authority of the Jatiya Sangsad Secretariat Act 1994.
The act itself is not beyond question as it was made unlawfully. It was formulated under the authority of the article 79 of the constitution, which says about the formation of the parliament secretariat. But the Act has little relation with the constitutional provision. Through the act, the speaker has been given all authority over the parliament secretariat including financial authority. The act has triggered enormous controversy and it may be void if any one challenges it with the competent court.
Be that as it may, the sections of the Act which the speaker has cited do not authorise the speaker to incur any expenditure without budgetary provision. The Parliament Secretariat Commission approves the Parliament Secretariat’s budget. By going through the speaker’s statement, it appears that it was not incorporated in the parliament secretariat’s budget that could have provided him with the said amount of money.
Section 18 of the Jatiya Sangsad Secretariat Act says the speaker is the final authority for approval of the expenditure of the allocated money for the parliament secretariat. Referring to the section, Jamiruddin Sircar also claimed his financial authority over the parliament secretariat. According to this section, the speaker will have to act as the principal accounting officer. He is responsible for enforcing financial order and strict economy at every step. He is responsible for observance of all relevant financial rules and regulations both by his own office and by subordinate disbursing officers. But it does not confer any right on him to sanction any expenditure for his own benefit directly or indirectly.
His written undertaking to draw the medical bill clearly shows that Jamiruddin Sircar has exercised section 12 of the Special Medical Attendance Rules 1950. To do so, he himself has assumed this power under the rules without any authority. It is absolutely the government’s power that says: “Nothing in these rules be construed as preventing the government from granting to any person to whom they apply any concession relating to medical treatment or attendance which is not authorised by these rules.”
Interestingly, the speaker in his undertaking has clearly mentioned that the previous two prime ministers—Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, have exercised this power to sanction medical expenditure for VVIPs in parliament. The then prime minister, Khaleda Zia, did not approve his medical bill.
Here I want to mention an instance when I was the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). My office had given objection to a medical bill of Tk 5.74 lakh for the then chief whip Abul Hasnat Abdullah as the speaker approved the bill. At that time, Hasnat Abdullah was annoyed with the office of the CAG and had to send the medical bill to the then prime minister for approval.
According to the speaker’s undertaking, the then prime minister in last year did not approve his own medical bill and even the premier did not want to exercise her power under the Special Medical Attendance Rules. But Jamiruddin Sircar himself exercised the power to draw the medial bill. By doing so, he has clearly violated the Special Medical Attendance Rules 1950.
But he has now come up with the press statement that he has done it by the virtue of his authority under the Jatiya Sangsad Act 1994. It is clear that there is no consistency in his statement. Giving an undertaking to draw the medical bill indicates that he was not sure about his power and authorities to sanction the money. Had he been so sure about his authorities what warranted him to give an undertaking?
At the press conference, Sircar blasted The Daily Star for running the news on his illegal drawing of the medical bill and made some funny comments on news coverage. I don’t like to repeat it here. I just want to make a request to the speaker—please maintain the dignity of the office of the speaker as long as you hold the constitutional post. Do not bring down the dignity of the highly respected office by doing any controversial acts.
M Hafizuddin Khan is a former adviser to the caretaker government and an ex-CAG.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Every news has its background. For this one about Mr Sircar is nothing more than a personal remark of the Speaker which Mr Anam did not find appropriate in a private gathering just the day before the first news against the Speaker came out in the Daily Star. The origin of this is few months back when Mr Mahfuz Anam was barred from entering the parliament. http://www.southasianmedia.net/Archive_full.cfm?nid=363864
We can criticize people on subtle issues of Principles of Accounting, principles of Law, ranks of precedence and so on. The basic story is that Mr Sircar taken funds for his treatment from the government while he undergone his second bypass surgery in 2005 in Singapore while in office.
In a quick note, a person holding such an high office on principle ought to be treated by the state. If Sabina Yasmin’s cancer treatment could be funded by the State, without her being a public representative, then as for the Speaker, Mr Sircar, rightly deserves to be paid by the government for life threatening treatment. It is only a matter of intellectual discourse whether that fund could be authorized by himself or by a superior.
Moreover, in this time when all politicians are going through combing scrutiny by press and government agencies, there are nothing in particular found to suggests Mr Sircar used his office to benefit himself. None of his close or distant relatives became rich during his tenure, neither could anyone show a single example of Mr Sircar’s family who has made a fortune during any of his long 15 years of holding ministerial offices or that of the Speaker. Out of several hundred NAM flats distributed by the Parliament Secretariat not a single flat could be found to be allotted in the name of anyone linked to Mr Sircar.
This personal vendetta by Mr Anam and the Daily Star family is indeed sad and exposes the journalistic mentality prevailing in Bangladesh. Famous journalist Mr Abul Mansur Ahmed once had to go to jail because of yellow journalism very similar to the present one. Mr Anam and Daily Star family should know better how even an honest man can be abused by the media. Therefore they should be responsible enough in their reporting.
Think Ethics.
Farazi Munshi
16 July 2007