Sale of Pak properties in Jakarta, Indonesia

ISLAMABAD: National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq in his earlier capacity of convener of a special parliamentary body has urged Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Khursheed Shah to refer to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) a questionable deal of sale of Pakistan’s precious properties in Jakarta, Indonesia.
He has handed the PAC chief the comprehensive report of a high-powered foreign ministry committee, which recommended that the dubious deal should be investigated by the NAB or the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
During the tenure of the previous National Assembly, Ayaz Sadiq was the convener of the special committee of the PAC on sale of government properties in Jakarta.
He confirmed to The News that he has delivered these findings to the PAC chairman with the request that an early action should be taken and the matter should be forwarded to the NAB. Already, he said, there has been tremendous delay.
It is learnt that the family of Dr SMH Razvi (now deceased), the then head of mission/minister at the Jakarta embassy, who, according to the report, was badly treated because of raising his voice over the deal has left Pakistan out of frustration. As the story goes, according to documents available with The News, on the instructions of the special committee in July 2011, the foreign ministry had formed the four-member panel comprising two additional secretaries and two directors.
It was assigned to examine all the relevant files and documents and undertake detailed study of the report of a three-member committee consisting of a federal secretary and two joint secretaries, formed by the then Chief Executive or CE (Pervez Musharraf) to look into the deal.
When questions had been raised about the deal, the CE had set up the panel and its members also visited Jakarta in connection with their assignment. However, it exonerated the ambassador and sought disciplinary proceedings against Dr SMH Razvi for opposing the deal.
On February 21, 2002, the then Ambassador, Maj-Gen (R) Syed Mustafa Anwer Hussain, informed foreign ministry that the Pakistani mission’s committee has considered various offers for the chancery building and embassy residence and recommended their sale for Indonesian Rupiah 32.5 billion or $3.129 (residence for Rupiah 20 billion or $1.96 million and chancery building for Rupiah 12.5 billion or $1.23 million).
The foreign ministry committee rejected the findings of the CE’s body. It said in its report that gross procedural irregularities have been committed in signing the binding sale agreement of the chancery building by compromising policy and relevant rules. As required under the relevant rules neither any advertisements were published in the newspapers nor sealed bids invited.
It said that more serious irregularities pertain to unauthorized sale of government property without seeking approval from the inter-ministerial committee comprising the foreign secretary and the finance secretary or their representatives as well as without authorisation letter from the foreign ministry.
The committee appointed by the Pakistani embassy for sale of the properties made its recommendations on February 7, 2002.
However, the foreign ministry was not informed till February 21, 2002 (after exact two weeks). Meanwhile, the then ambassador signed a binding sale agreement on February 18, 2002 and three days later (February 21, 2002) approached the foreign ministry for issuance of authorisation letter for the sale of the property, which, according to him, was the ‘little impediment to complete the formalities.’
The report said that the former ambassador’s contention in his latest response that approval of the competent authority was very much there to sell the properties, which was reconfirmed for the sale of the chancery building for Indonesian Rupiah 12.5 billion vide foreign ministry fax message dated April 27, 2002 is not tenable as even the CE’s committee has pointed out serious lapses in compliance with the relevant rules and procedures. As regards the confirmation of the sale vide the fax message; it was issued after the CE’s committee had submitted almost one-sided inquiry report to the Chief of Staff (COS) to the CE, supporting the former ambassador.
According to the report, the minutes of the Pakistan embassy’s committee indicate that it had approved selling of the Chancery building to one Chairul Tanjung, owner and chairman of Bank Mega, but the agreement was finalized between Mustafa Anwer Husain and Mrs Anita Ratnasari, dentist. However, it does not contain signature of the buyer or seller. It also did not have signatures of any witnesses, which raises doubts about the authenticity of the document. Regrettably, the CE’s committee did not note these contradictions and lapses.
The information provided by the ambassador, who replaced Mustafa Anwer Husain, about the price of properties during 2002-2003 in the prime locality where the chancery and residence were located created serious suspicions about the probity of the transaction undertaken by the former ambassador, apparently with the help of acquaintances. The new ambassador also challenged the contention about the construction of multi-storey buildings on the premises of the previous Pakistani properties.
The findings said that as this committee has no means to undertake investigation on ground and verify the report submitted by the new ambassador and the claims made by the former diplomat with regard to the competitive price he has received for the government properties, it feels that the case is fit for referral to some professional investigation agency like the FIA or the NAB to unearth all the facts pertaining to the sale of valuable properties.
As regards the foreign ministry’s effective control with regard to functioning of non-career ambassadors, since in some cases non-career diplomats are people of influence and have direct access to the highest authority in Pakistan as was the case with ambassador Mustafa Anwer Husain, which results in avoidable complications. There is a need to clearly delineate procedures whereby non-career ambassadors should be bound to follow the chain of command and directions from the foreign ministry.
The report said that as regard Razvi, the committee is of the opinion that he was treated in an unfair and biased manner. The foreign ministry despite its request was not allowed to undertake inquiry against its officer, Razvi, and his case was transferred to the establishment division.
The foreign ministry as the parent department would have been in a better position to undertake a departmental inquiry against him in a fair manner. It would have been in accordance with the principle of justice and fair play.
In order to vindicate his honour and for being fair to late Razvi, the members of the CE’s committee need to seek apology from his family. In order to compensate Razvi’s widow, she should be allotted an appropriate residential plot at part with officers of her husband’s seniority in the service.
Razvi told the committee that he had no access to relevant correspondence that took place between the foreign ministry and the embassy. He kept sending adverse reports about the deal, which irked the then ambassador.
The CE’s committee said the ambassador was not getting adequate support from Razvi. It recommended that the sale agreement should be approved by competent authority and the foreign ministry may initiate disciplinary proceedings against Razvi for deliberate incorrect reporting on a very sensitive matter.
The report said that the then ambassador spoke about Razvi in a disparaging manner, commented on his professional competence, personality traits and even passed comments about his wife. He extensively commented on his PhD qualification and even went to the extent of speaking to one of the chancellors in Jakarta universities with regard to authenticity of his qualification.
However, the new ambassador told the committee that three reputed firms categorically confirmed that the sale price charged by Pakistani embassy was much below the market value of the two prosperities located at the prime spots in Menteng close to the residence of the governor and the vice president and almost adjacent to the Indonesian president’s personal residence and to the residence of Saudi ambassador.
The foreign office committee said that as regards disciplinary proceedings against Razvi, he appears to have been treated rather unfairly. It also seems a travesty of justice that foreign ministry, the parent organisation, was not allowed to undertake an inquiry against Razvi and instead he was attached with the establishment division as OSD where he was issued a show cause notice for gross misconduct and serious violation of discipline, bypassing channels of communication, incorrect reporting.