"Regarding the installation of optical fibre cable and SDH transmission link between Dhaka and Rajshahi, my contention is that after receiving the DG, CPTU's opinion on overseas tour of one or two officials of BTTB and the recommendation for award of contract to the host of the tour, we, on behalf of the Ministry, brought it to the notice of the Cabinet Purchase Committee on Government procurement meeting held on August 21, 2006, where it was discussed threadbare, and finally the said committee took a decision on the matter.

It is hoped that this may be reflected in the proceedings of the meeting. Subsequently, I brought the matter to the notice of the Secretary, Cabinet Division and the Secretary to the Hon'ble Prime Minister in writing vide the ministry's Memo No. PT/SHAKHA-6/BA-15/2006/343 dated August 24, 2006. This was done with a clear intention that the matter may be reviewed in the committee if it already had taken a decision, or to stop it from taking it if it had not been taken till then.

The purpose of writing to the Secretary, to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, who is the final authority, was obviously to the matter to the knowledge of the PM so that she could take a decision after knowing full facts of the matter. It is therefore clear that I have not only not hidden any information, but highlighted them before concerned authorities so that they can take a proper decision.

Regarding installation of common platform for VoIP, my contention is that the Review Panel, CPTU, IMED, for retender was brought to the notice of the Cabinet Purchase Committee on Government procurement meeting held on August 21, 2006, on behalf of our Ministry where it was discussed elaborately, and finally the said committee took a decision on the matter. It is expected that this may be reflected in the minutes of the meeting. The subsequent recommendation of the Tender Evaluation Committee seeking administrative approval of the Ministry came to my notice on August 21, 2006, in the afternoon, i.e., after the meeting of the Cabinet Purchase Committee on Government procurement was over.

I informed the Secretary, Cabinet Division and the Secretary to the Hon'ble Prime Minister in writing vide this Ministry's Memo No. PT/SHAKHA-6/KROYPROSTAB-7/2006/342 dated August 24, 2006 with a sincere intention that the matter may be reviewed by the Cabinet Purchase Committee or by the Hon'ble Prime Minister and appropriate decision may be taken after knowing full facts of the matter.

It is therefore crystal clear that I did not suppress any information, rather highlighted them before concerned authorities so that proper decision can be taken in this regard.”

OUR REPLY
The former telecommunications secretary claims to have mentioned the CPTU's reservations to the purchase committee in August 21 meeting and the participating ministers had “discussed threadbare” that was followed by approval of both the deals. Evidently the secretary had not tabled CPTU's objections in writing prior to this meeting. Therefore, his claim of threadbare discussion by the committee is incorrect and this is what we exactly reported and he has certainly concealed the irregularities pertaining to these two deals from the ministerial body. Because being the telecommunications secretary, he is duty-bound to appraise the purchase committee before it meets and discusses any complicated issue.

The former telecommunications secretary has rather blamed the cabinet purchase committee members for taking improper decision. That's why after three days, on August 24, he officially “highlighted them before concerned authorities so that proper decision can be taken in this regard”.

The former telecommunications secretary, however, has not said why he has not recalled both the purchase proposals he sent to the cabinet secretary and, therefore, the cabinet purchase committee should not have even reviewed them at the first place.

The CPTU has consecutively drawn his attention to the violation of ethical standards as stated in the Public Procurement Regulations. He has, however, paid no respect to CPTU's red flag and processed the optical fibre deal with Huawei instead.

Similarly, on July 5, 2006 vide letter no IMED/CPTU/ PPRP0202D/287, the CPTU had asked him to suspend dealing with Huawei on VoIP until the review panel decides. Subsequently, on July 24, the review panel asked the telecommunications secretary to scrap this deal with Huawei and invite fresh bids.

The former secretary has not only brushed aside these directives, but also ignored BTTB's pleading to re-tender the project. His rejoinder says nothing about the CPTU's or the review panel's directives. Rather he has cooked up a bizarre story about the BTTB's appeal.

The BTTB sent its letter to the telecommunications secretary on August 15. He, however, claims to have noticed it six days later, on August 21, after attending the cabinet purchase committee's meeting. One may wonder what kept this highly important letter into invisible mode for six days and what has made it visible again.

We stand by our report.