ACC's NOC Scandal: The Mystery Behind CAAB Eng Aminul Hasib’s ‘Clean Chit’

Old corruption records, Tk 812 crore cases and a controversial ‘no case’ certificate raise serious questions over CAAB engineer’s promotion

A government engineer entrusted with major infrastructure projects involving hundreds of crores of taka is now at the centre of serious questions over accountability, administrative scrutiny and the handling of corruption cases.

Mohammad Aminul Hasib, an engineer of the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB), was previously subjected to a departmental investigation over allegations of serious irregularities, negligence and potential financial losses to the government. He was subsequently suspended.

Despite this history, he later returned to important airport development projects.

More recently, his name appeared in cases filed by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) over alleged embezzlement involving several airport development projects. Yet, in 2026, the ACC reportedly issued a no-objection certificate (NOC) stating that there were no cases pending against him. Soon after the certificate was issued, Hasib was promoted to the post of superintending engineer, according to reports citing CAAB sources.

The controversy deepened when the ACC itself later acknowledged that the earlier NOC contained an error and moved to issue a corrected letter. The central question is no longer limited to whether the allegations against Hasib are true or false.

The bigger question is this: How did an official who had faced departmental disciplinary action and was later named as an accused in an ACC case continue to hold key project responsibilities and ultimately receive a promotion?

Another critical question is how information about an ongoing ACC case disappeared from a certificate issued specifically for the purpose of determining his eligibility for promotion.

2019: Investigation Leads to Suspension

One of the earliest major documented controversies involving Aminul Hasib concerns the Cox’s Bazar Airport Development Project.

In November 2019, a departmental case was initiated against him based on a ministry investigation report, and he was suspended.

According to information published citing the investigation, he was accused of negligence in performing his duties, incompetence, corrupt practices and misappropriation.

One of the key issues involved land acquisition for the airport development project.

According to the investigation report, Tk 69.28 crore demanded by the district administration for land acquisition was not deposited within the stipulated period. As a result, the relevant land acquisition proceedings were cancelled, creating the possibility of an additional government expenditure of at least Tk 100 crore under subsequent legal provisions.

The investigation report reportedly attributed the situation to Hasib’s personal failure and negligence as project director.

A 2019 investigation-related report reportedly found that the boundary wall had not been constructed according to the tender specifications. The report also pointed to personal failure, incompetence and negligence on the part of Hasib as project director.

However, an allegation in an investigation report is not equivalent to a criminal conviction. Whether any wrongdoing was ultimately established is a matter to be determined through the relevant legal and administrative processes.

Nevertheless, when such serious observations appear in an official government investigation, the manner in which they were considered during subsequent postings and promotions becomes an important matter of public interest.

Controversial Return After Suspension

One of the most significant unanswered questions concerns what happened after his suspension and departmental proceedings in 2019. The publicly available information does not provide the complete record of the final outcome of the departmental case.

The departmental inquiry against Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh's (CAAB) Supervising Engineer Mohammad Aminul Hasib faces criticism on some solid grounds.

How was he reinstated? Which authority ordered his reinstatement? How was the departmental case disposed of? Was he cleared of the allegations? If so, what was the basis of that decision? And were those records reviewed before he was subsequently assigned major projects and considered for promotion?

Without clear answers to these questions, it is difficult to fully understand the administrative trajectory of his career.

Handling Major Projects Worth Crores

CAAB’s project-related records reportedly show Hasib’s involvement in several major airport development projects. He was listed as project director for the project involving asphalt concrete overlay on the runways of Jashore, Saidpur and Rajshahi airports. The estimated cost of the project was Tk 566.76 crore.

Hasib was also associated with consultancy services for the expansion of Chattogram’s Shah Amanat International Airport and projects related to the development of Cox’s Bazar Airport.

His responsibilities therefore involved substantial public funds as well as project management, tendering, contractor selection, supervision of works and payment procedures.

For this reason, allegations involving tender manipulation or commission payments need to be examined against the relevant project records rather than treated merely as personal allegations.

ACC Cases Involving Tk 812 Crore

Several years after the 2019 allegations, Hasib’s name resurfaced in connection with ACC cases concerning airport development projects.

In January 2025, the ACC filed four cases over alleged embezzlement of a combined Tk 812 crore in four airport development projects. A total of 19 people were named as accused in the cases.

The allegations reportedly involved:

• Around Tk 200 crore in the radar project at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport;

• Around Tk 250 crore in the third-terminal project at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport;

• Around Tk 212 crore in the expansion project of Sylhet Osmani International Airport; and

• Around Tk 150 crore in the terminal and runway construction project at Cox’s Bazar International Airport.

Hasib was named as an accused in the case related to Cox’s Bazar Airport and was identified in reports on the case documents as a former project director of the relevant project.

Again, being named as an accused in an ACC case does not establish guilt. The final outcome depends on the investigation and judicial process.

However, if a government official facing an ongoing corruption case receives a promotion, the transparency of the decision naturally becomes a matter of public concern.

ACC's NOC Scandal

This is perhaps the most serious documented question surrounding the entire episode. On March 11, 2026, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism reportedly asked the ACC whether any case was pending or under investigation against CAAB engineers Mohammad Aminul Hasib and Moidur Rahman Moudud.

The NOC subsequently issued by the ACC reportedly stated that there were no cases against them. But published reports indicate that both officials had ACC cases against them.

After the matter came to light, the ACC reportedly acknowledged the error. ACC Secretary Saidur Rahman Khan said the earlier NOC was incorrect and that a new letter mentioning the cases was being issued.

Now, this raises a series of questions. How could information about an ongoing ACC case be absent from an NOC issued by the ACC itself? Was the case information unavailable to the relevant section? Was information not obtained from the investigating officer? Was there a failure in the verification process? And if it was simply an administrative error, who should be held accountable?

Promotion After NOC

The timing of the events has further intensified the controversy. According to reports citing CAAB sources, Aminul Hasib was promoted to superintending engineer after the ACC’s no-case certificate was received.

In other words, the sequence was:

ACC ‘no case’ certificate → promotion process → promotion to superintending engineer.

The promotion file is therefore potentially crucial. How was the ACC certificate used in the promotion process? Did the authorities know that an ACC case existed against Hasib? Was the promotion decision reconsidered after the ACC issued its corrected certificate? These questions remain unclear based on the information currently available.

Alleged NOC Manipulation

The controversy has been further complicated by an allegation attributed to an ACC-related source. According to the source, the two engineers allegedly obtained the no-case certificates by ‘managing’ officials involved in the investigation.

However, this is an allegation attributed to a source and has not been established as a finding of an official ACC investigation. Determining whether the episode was merely an administrative mistake or whether there was any deliberate suppression of case information requires a transparent internal investigation by the ACC.

Tk 5 Crore Promotion Allegation

Another serious allegation has surfaced concerning Hasib’s recent promotion.

A news report reportedly alleged that he secured the post of superintending engineer in exchange for approximately Tk 5 crore. The same report also alleged that he received commissions from contractors. These allegations have not been established in the publicly available material and therefore require independent verification.

5% Commission Allegation

Another report alleged that Hasib received commissions of around 5 percent from contractors in exchange for awarding project work. Again, the allegation has not been established by the publicly available evidence. However, it could potentially be examined through government procurement records.

For projects where Hasib served as project director or responsible engineer, investigators should examine the entire procurement chain:

Estimated cost → tender invitation → list of bidders → evaluation committee decision → work order → quantity of work → variations/additional work → bills → final payment.

It would also be important to determine whether the same contractors repeatedly secured projects, how competitive the tenders were, the difference between estimated and final contract prices, and whether project quantities increased unusually.

Significant Assets in Khulna

Questions have also been raised over Hasib’s alleged assets. An initial investigation by 'The Finance Today' reportedly found information about a luxury apartment on Jasimuddin Avenue in Uttara, Dhaka. The report further alleged that although Hasib’s ancestral home is in Cumilla, he and his brother-in-law Jahangir accumulated substantial assets in Daulatpur, Khulna.

According to the report, a three-storey building opposite Jahangir Library is allegedly jointly owned, with 50 percent attributed to Jahangir and the remaining 50 percent to Hasib.

This report also alleged the existence of a 20–25 decimal plot in Daulatpur with an estimated market value of at least Tk 4 crore, along with several plots and houses in Khalishpur and another plot near Daulatpur reportedly worth around Tk 5 crore.

These asset-related claims require verification through land records, registration documents, tax records, bank documents and other legally obtained evidence before being treated as established facts.

Tender Irregularities: Documents Tell the Story

Various reports have raised allegations of tender irregularities and commission-based dealings involving Hasib. But before declaring such allegations true or false, the underlying project documents need to be examined.

Key procurement documents include:

• Project estimates;

• Tender evaluation reports;

• BOQ;

• NOA;

• Work orders;

• Contracts;

• Records of tender amendments;

• Running bills;

• Final bills; and

• Completion certificates.

A comparison of these documents could reveal whether irregularities actually occurred.

Major Roles, Repeated Allegations

The entire episode becomes more significant when viewed as a sequence rather than as isolated incidents.

2019 — Government investigation and suspension over allegations concerning the Cox’s Bazar project.

Later — Return to important projects.

Subsequently — Responsibilities in several major airport development projects.

2025 — Named as an accused in an ACC case involving allegations related to Tk 812 crore across four projects.

2026 — ACC NOC states that there is no case against him.

Afterward — Promotion to superintending engineer.

Later — ACC acknowledges that the earlier NOC was incorrect and moves to issue a correction.

This sequence is now the central subject of scrutiny.

The Bigger Question

The controversy is not merely about allegations against one engineer. It raises questions at three institutional levels.

First: CAAB. What verification was conducted before assigning and promoting an official who had previously faced departmental allegations and was later named in an ACC case?

Second: The Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism. After seeking information from the ACC for the purpose of promotion, was there any independent mechanism to verify the response received? 

Third: The ACC. How was information about an ongoing case omitted from a ‘no case’ certificate? And who is responsible for the error?

Several attempts were reportedly made to contact Aminul Hasib by phone regarding the recent NOC and promotion. But He did not answer the calls or respond to any text messages.

However, a report concerning the promotion reportedly carried his side’s position that the allegations were baseless and motivated.

Documents to Be Made Public

To establish the full facts, the following documents should be obtained and examined. These pappers includes 2019 ministry investigation report; The departmental case filed against Aminul Hasib; The final order disposing of the departmental case; The suspension and reinstatement orders; The ACC FIR/case documents filed in 2025; Investigation documents concerning the Cox’s Bazar project; The complete 2026 promotion file; The ministry’s correspondence with the ACC concerning the NOC; The ACC’s original NOC; The ACC’s corrected NOC; Legal opinions concerning the promotion; and Tender and work-order documents for major projects handled by Hasib.

Making these documents available would help distinguish allegations from verified facts.

NOC: The Biggest Mystery

Whether the allegations raised in 2019 were ultimately established, what the final outcome of the departmental case was, and what will happen to the ACC cases filed in 2025 are matters for the relevant investigative and judicial processes. But one issue has already emerged as a serious question from the available records and published information:

Why was an official reportedly facing an ACC case issued a certificate stating that he had no case? And if that certificate contributed to his promotion, who will be held accountable for an administrative decision based on incorrect information?

The sequence is difficult to ignore: serious allegations emerged from a government investigation in 2019; Hasib was later named as an accused in an ACC case related to airport development projects; in 2026, the case information was reportedly absent from an ACC NOC; and around the same period, he received a promotion.

This should not be viewed simply as the story of one official’s promotion. It raises broader questions about accountability in government projects, CAAB’s procurement system, the verification process for the appointment and promotion of officials, and the ACC’s own information-management system.

The priority now should not be to declare anyone guilty in advance. The priority should be to open the records, reconcile the financial figures, examine every stage of the tendering process, review the entire administrative file from the 2019 investigation through the 2026 promotion, and determine exactly how an ACC case disappeared from a ‘no case’ certificate—who issued it, why it was issued, and who benefited from the error.

Ultimately, the issue is not merely about the allegations against Aminul Hasib. It is about how accountable the institutions entrusted with protecting public money truly are.