Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has accused the state minister for local government of attempting to legitimize bribery by suggesting that government engineers can accept money from contractors as “gifts” for performing their official duties.
The anti-corruption watchdog demanded an unconditional withdrawal of the remarks, a public apology and an explanation from the government on whether the minister’s position reflects official policy.
The controversy stems from remarks the state minister reportedly made on November 10 while inaugurating a training programme for newly appointed assistant engineers of the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED).
He reportedly said engineers could accept gifts from contractors’ profits after ensuring the quality of work and promptly clearing their bills, arguing that such payments would not constitute bribes.
TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman questioned how payments from contractors to public officials could be considered legitimate rewards for duties already covered by government salaries.
“Engineers receive salaries and benefits from public funds precisely to perform these duties. Why, then, should they accept illicit payments from contractors under the guise of ‘gifts’ in return for carrying out their responsibilities?” he said.
“Is the State Minister legitimising bribery by suggesting that gifts may be accepted for performing these duties? Is he, in effect, encouraging the acceptance of bribes?”
Iftekharuzzaman described the advice to newly recruited engineers as “grossly irresponsible and a violation of the law”.
He warned that such remarks could encourage engineers to demand payments from contractors, turning corruption into an accepted practice across government procurement.
“Such remarks by a State Minister could legitimise demands for bribes at the field level and lead to a wider proliferation of corruption,” he said.
TIB challenged the minister to identify the law permitting government engineers to receive personal financial benefits from contractors for performing their routine duties.
According to the watchdog, Section 161 of the Penal Code criminalises accepting gratification beyond legally authorised remuneration for performing official duties.
Section 165 also provides punishment for public servants accepting valuable items from people connected to their official responsibilities.
Under Rule 5(1) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, accepting gifts that create official obligations requires prior government approval, subject to specified exceptions.
Rule 5(4) sets a limit of 500 taka for certain gifts received by secretaries or officers of equivalent rank from specified sources.
Meanwhile, Paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 20 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2025 permits low-value promotional items, including diaries, calendars and pens bearing organisational logos, worth up to 5,000 taka each.
But TIB said none of these provisions permits government engineers to receive personal payments from contractors’ profits as rewards for carrying out official responsibilities.
Iftekharuzzaman also warned that accepting financial benefits from contractors would create direct conflicts of interest.
“How can an engineer remain impartial if they accept personal benefits from the very contractor whose work they are responsible for supervising?” he asked.
Such arrangements could compromise supervision, influence the certification of bills and undermine fair competition among contractors, he said.
He warned that collusion between contractors and engineers could spread to other government departments, making unofficial payments a condition for obtaining public services.
“What is being claimed today as a voluntarily offered gift could, tomorrow, turn into a government-sanctioned condition for extracting bribes from citizens seeking services to which they are entitled,” he said.
The controversy has also raised questions about a senior secretary whose advice the state minister reportedly cited to justify his remarks.
TIB demanded that the government establish whether the secretary had indeed offered such advice.
“If the senior secretary did indeed offer such advice, as described by the State Minister, serious questions arise about the secretary’s professional integrity and ethical fitness to remain in office,” Iftekharuzzaman said.
He also questioned whether the remarks suggested an attempt to institutionalise collusive corruption involving the minister and the secretary.
TIB said the position was embarrassing for the government and the ruling party and contradicted the government's election manifesto.
Iftekharuzzaman recalled an earlier controversy involving the road transport and bridges minister, who had described extortion as a matter of negotiated transactions.
He said such statements from senior government figures should serve as warning signs about the potential normalisation of corruption.
TIB called on the state minister to publicly apologise and withdraw his remarks unconditionally.
It also demanded that the government seek a formal explanation from the minister, ensure his accountability, investigate the senior secretary's alleged advice and take appropriate legal action if warranted.
The watchdog said the government must clarify whether it endorses the minister's interpretation of payments from contractors or considers such transactions unlawful.