National Citizen Party lawmaker Hasnat Abdullah has questioned the source of Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed’s wealth and called for annual scrutiny of the bank accounts of MPs, ministers and their close relatives, days after the country’s financial intelligence agency sought banking information on Youtuber Salman Muqtadir.
“If bank account information is genuinely being sought in the public interest, then the accounts of every MP and minister should also be scrutinised,” Hasnat wrote on his verified Facebook page on Friday.
The Cumilla-4 lawmaker also said such scrutiny should extend to close relatives of those holding public office and volunteered himself for the exercise.
“Let it begin with me,” he wrote.
Hasnat’s intervention comes after the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit asked banks this week to urgently provide Salman’s account information, account-opening forms and transaction statements.
A BFIU official said such requests were routine and did not in themselves indicate wrongdoing. The reason for seeking Salman’s information was not disclosed.
Hasnat drew a connection between the timing of the BFIU move and the broader question of how state institutions exercise their powers.
“The state can seek anyone’s bank account information,” he wrote. “But the matter becomes concerning when bank accounts are summoned after someone raises their voice against the government.”
He then turned his attention to Salahuddin, a BNP Standing Committee member who now serves as home minister, citing corruption cases brought against him during the military-backed caretaker government of 2007-08, commonly known as the 1/11 government.
In January 2008, a special court sentenced Salahuddin, then a former state minister for communications, to seven years in prison for taking a 1 crore taka bribe from businessman Mir Zahir Hossain in exchange for promising government contracts.
The court also fined him 1 crore taka, ordered another year in prison in default of payment and directed authorities to confiscate the bribe money. The ACC had filed the case in May 2007.
Months later, in June 2008, another special court sentenced Salahuddin to 13 years in prison on two corruption charges — 10 years for acquiring wealth beyond known sources of income and three years for concealing asset information.
The case alleged that he had acquired about 4.05 crore taka beyond his known income and concealed another 29.02 lakh taka in his wealth statement. The court also imposed a 2 crore taka fine and ordered confiscation of the assets in question. Salahuddin’s wife, Hasina Ahmed, was acquitted in that case.
Hasnat also referred to two cases filed against Salahuddin in 2007 over allegations involving the occupation of shrimp farms and theft of fish in Chakaria.
A Cox’s Bazar court acquitted Salahuddin and the other accused in those cases in September 2024 after finding that the complainants had failed to produce a witness and police had failed to prove the allegations.
Salahuddin said after the ruling that the cases had been “false, baseless and politically motivated” and that justice had been established.
Hasnat, however, said Salahuddin’s present wealth deserved scrutiny regardless of the eventual fate of cases brought nearly two decades ago.
He cited election affidavits to question the growth in assets held by Salahuddin and his wife.
An analysis published on January 6, 2026 by The Daily Star newspaper of affidavits and tax documents found Salahuddin’s assets had risen from around 2.8 crore taka in 2008 to 18.2 crore taka in 2025, while Hasina’s assets increased from around 3.5 crore to 12.2 crore taka.
Together, their declared assets were therefore around 30.4 crore taka by 2025, compared with roughly 6.3 crore taka in 2008.
The same analysis found Salahuddin’s declared annual income rose from less than 3 lakh taka in 2008 to about 6.2 crore taka in the latest filing.
Hasnat also questioned Salahuddin’s ownership of an apartment in Gulshan’s Platinum Residence and referred to reports or discussions about other properties in the area.
“What is the source of this wealth?” he wrote.
Hasnat noted that Salahuddin had been an administration cadre officer from the 1985 BCS batch before resigning as a senior assistant secretary and entering politics in 1996.
He questioned how Salahuddin accumulated the money required for high-value property after moving from government service into full-time politics, including periods as an opposition MP, state minister, prisoner and opposition politician.
Hasnat also raised questions about expenditure on the overseas education of Salahuddin’s children.
“How much of this wealth came from income, how much from inheritance, how much from investment or other sources — is there a transparent explanation?” he wrote.
He also asked whether there was any mismatch between Salahuddin’s declared earnings, growth in assets and lifestyle expenditure.
“The most important question is: what is the actual source of this considerable wealth, and are there transparent and verifiable accounts to substantiate it?”
Hasnat’s post comes against the complicated legacy of the 1/11 period, when the military-backed caretaker administration launched a sweeping anti-corruption drive against politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats.
The crackdown was not confined to the BNP. Senior figures from both the BNP and Awami League were arrested or prosecuted, including the leaders of the two parties, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina.
International rights groups at the time also documented widespread arrests and raised concerns about due process and the military’s role in the caretaker administration.
The ACC itself began dropping some cases before the caretaker government had left office. In October 2008, it decided to exempt 250 accused in 121 graft cases for insufficient evidence, including former ministers and lawmakers from the Awami League, BNP and Jamaat.
After elected political governments returned, numerous cases originating in the 1/11 period were withdrawn, quashed or ended in acquittals over the following years. The process itself became politically contentious, with politicians frequently describing cases against them as politically motivated while critics questioned selective withdrawal of cases involving governing-party figures.
Transparency International Bangladesh has previously raised concerns about political interference in the handling of corruption cases.
The legacy of 1/11 has itself returned to scrutiny since the fall of the Awami League government. In 2026, authorities began examining allegations surrounding the military-backed caretaker period, including claims that powerful figures sought to remove both Hasina and Khaleda from politics under what became known as the “Minus Two” formula.
Salahuddin himself has continued to call for institutional scrutiny of alleged corruption. In parliament in July, he urged the prime minister to direct the ACC to investigate allegations of corruption during the 18-month interim government that preceded the BNP’s return to power.
Hasnat said the same standard should now apply to those exercising state power.
He pointed out that advisers of the previous interim government had publicly disclosed their assets and called for systematic scrutiny of the finances of current officeholders.
“To ensure transparency and accountability,” he wrote, “the bank accounts of MPs and ministers entrusted with responsibilities of the state — as well as their close relatives — should be scrutinised every year in the public interest.”
“Let us see whether these state institutions have the courage to demonstrate the same integrity.”
—