Exposing the tip of Corruption Icebergs
Sarhad Rural Support Corporation (Now called Sarhad Rural Support Programme) is a multi-donor funded, "poverty alleviation" organisations, claiming to be "harnessing potential" of "poorest of the poor" at no less than sixty million rupees (as estimated from its own record) per year. Now that the poor are crying foul for the last many years, no one - neither the bosses of Rural Support Programmes (RSPs), nor the government Mohtasibeen, Accountability Bureaus, concerned departments, not even someone from the donors -- seems ready to take an action despite numerous inquiries and knowing the facts brought before them with evidence and witnesses.
The donors, sitting in the posh office of ivory towers in Islamabad believe that situation on the ground is as rosy as presented to them through the self-praising, glassy reports of SRSC and other RSPs. When they occasionally manage to come down to the community level, they have no choice but to attend the meetings organised for them by SRSC with the people bribed - as described below - by SRSC to say what they are supposed to say at such pre-planned and well-rehearsed meetings.
Many of the hard facts seem unsubstantiated and generalised allegations until one spares sometime and takes the trouble of leaving comfortable home for the remotest corners of the province, and stay with the communities to know the whole situation and understand the grand drama being played out in the name of poverty alleviation by these RSPs, which, at best, could only become richness support organisations.
Just a few nights sitting beside the fire place of "poorest of the poor" is good enough to know how the foreign loans and grants are being plundered away by SRSC. The donors are being fooled for their lack of direct access to the remote parts of the programme areas and the government is silent because many of its own officials are directly involved in the scam. The simple fear of seeing many heads rolled has forced the government to repeat its enquiries - a total of three conducted so far - but they haven't seen the day light for the lack of will to take action against those involved.
Is this the much vaunted "community empowerment" that no one is ready to listen to the community members in whose name the funds have been obtained and who are keeping a record of their requests transmitted to the high ups - beginning from the Chief Executive (CEO) of SRSC to the Chief Executive of Pakistan? Until this report, one of the community members has transmitted ninety-nine (99) applications, which could only help bring the government officials to the site to confirm the charges against SRSC as true. None of them, however, returned to tell the community that their allegations were "unsubstantiated" and should stop complaining or telling lies, otherwise they would face strict action for repeatedly wasting time, money and energy of the Governor, Chief Secretary and many other concerned officials.
There is not much credibility of government, its departments, its enquiries, its NAB and the donors left in the eyes of these community members, who have followed the inquiry team members even into their office and their homes to know if they are going to take any action on the findings? These community members have testified under oath to the corruption of SRSC and have gathered mountains of undeniable evidence to prove their charges but to no avail so far. This is the story of just one Union Council, Sher Garrh, in Mansehra region.
The question is: How did all this corruption went on for years - and is still underway in other parts of the province -- if SRSC is in real sense a "poverty alleviation" programme? There must be very basic flaws in its approach, system and operations. Otherwise, such a large-scale mismanagement would long have been identified and addressed. There is either no check and balance, or monitoring and accountability mechanism in this highly centralised and bureaucratic system, or the monitors and supervisors are partners in the crimes committed. It is impossible in a transparent system that the CEO would receive the first complaint from a community and instead of taking some action, he would arrange for filming fake videos and photographs to prove complaints to the contrary - an attempt to cover up the guilt rather than exposing the filth.
Instead of accepting responsibility for the negligence and guilt, the unrepentant CEO still choose to beg the accountants of Mansehra Village Support Programme (MVSP) to not only somehow wrap up the accounts in favour of SRSC, but also issue another Rs. 10 million on top of the already unsettled Rs. 152 million extended as advance to SRSC for community development schemes in Mansehra.
The reason for unabated corruption in SRSC is not that it does not have a monitoring and evaluation system, but the most expensive and centralised set up for this purpose has neither the capacity nor the permission to dug out this level of intense and wide spread corruption. Moreover, close relations (friendly and family) of the management make favouritism flourish. Anyone, who takes an initiative to expose the filth is labelled as "trouble shooter" and thus transferred or forced to resign from the organisation. The Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Officers (PMERO) sitting in the regional offices are dependent on the data provided to them by the respective Social Organisation Units (SOUs) in the remote areas. The most highly paid PMER set up at the Head Office then arranges just for glassy printing of the same statistics without any verification.
If they could verify, or if they were allowed to do such verifications, the community members would not have transmit up to 100 applications, telling all the responsible persons in Pakistan that hundreds of development schemes and community organisations that SRSC is reporting to have completed and formed respectively, do not even exist. We are sure that except the Chief of PMER section, none of the other PMER Officers even knows about the level and nature of corruption on the ground. There is absolutely no mechanism for on the site verification of the community organisations and infrastructure schemes or their operations. Otherwise, how is it possible that the schemes and organisations reported by the Head Office have no existence on the ground at all?
There is a position of Chief Social Organiser (CSO) at the Head Office level. What kind of controlling or verification mechanism does a CSO has to know about the fake organisations (out of the 900 reported organisations less than 50 would be functional), fake memberships, and even fake villages reported from the grassroots by the SOs and their regional programme officers? What justification does SRSC has for its overly bureaucratic and expensive set up, when it cannot even effectively undertake its fundamental monitoring responsibilities?
The government has so far conducted three inquiries in one Union Council of Mansehra due to an initiative taken by the community members. The community members do not have resources to expand their investigations but the circumstances and meeting with the staff members of SRSC clearly suggest that the same pattern of corruption is pervasive and encompassing. Irrespective of not taking any action so far, the government at least arranged for three enquiries. However, the CEO, Chief SO, Chief PMER or Chief finance of SRSC did not feel it necessary to form an investigation committee to conduct its own inquiry into the complaints of corruption brought up by the community members. The only reason for not conducting such an internal inquiry is the management did not want to blow the lid off its corruption's Pandora box and let the other staff members know about the real face of SRSC.
So far, SRSC kept such issues in total secrecy limited up to the management level and the top GOP officials involved in either the inquiries or the scandal themselves. It matters less to the management of SRSC if the community knows and have proof for every wrong that has been committed in the name of helping the "poorest of the poor" because they are considered innocuous to the long-term sustainability of SRSC.
Following are just a few glaring examples of corrupt practices in SRSC (from just one Union Council - Sher Garrh, Oghi, Mansehra -- of its programme spread over eight districts) of just one project (MVSP that started in 1993) to let the public know about its tareeqa-e-waridath -- ways in which SRSC gets involved in corruption on such a large scale. Evidence of the following summary of the wide scale corruption is available not only at the Frontier Post Office but also with the community members, who have testified and are ready to provide further details, which are beyond the scope of this report.
As a first step, a team of SRSC staff members approach a community and introduce themselves as "Social Guides" for helping the community become "self-reliant." The community members are asked to form groups of at least 20 members, elect their president and secretary, and start regular meetings and savings. The most outspoken community members, or relatives of the influential of the area, are encouraged to become the office bearers of these organisations. From then onwards, SRSC staff keeps its contact mainly with the office bearers who come up with a list of community members in their respective organisations.
Some of the organisations, like the ones in Talian (Oghi, Mansehra), there are 8-9 widely scattered houses, out of which an organisation has been formed. In most cases, the community members shown in the record are fake. For instance, In Serri Gorya organisation, Abdul Kahliq S/O Safiullah, Abdul Kahliq S/O Yahya and Farooq S/O Yahya, died in 1980, 1990 and 1997 respectively - long before the formation of the organisation. It is, however, interesting to note that they have their thumb impressions in the community resolutions (request with identified need and estimated cost) to SRSC in 1999. The formation fee charged to MVSP by SRSC is Rs. 260,000 per organisation. In fact, it did not take the SOs more than a few visits to the community.
Regarding fake memberships, Ms Gul Nissa Daughter of Mahmood lives in PF-45 (Kot), but she is a member in a community organisation in PF-46. She is a widow and does not even own a house. Reporting fake membership might not be a big issue, but the story does end here. Records of SRSC show that 21 kanal land has been levelled for her in PF-46, which, of course, cost money. When the land is actually not levelled, it either means the funds levelled pockets of the office bearers of community organisations, or the staff members of SRSC, or, as the evidence suggest, of both of these.
After receiving resolution from the office bearers of an organisation, SRSC issues a cheque for the development scheme. As soon as the office bearers cash the Ist cheque, SSO and Engineer take the already decided share in the funds. This process goes on until the final (usually third) cheque is released. This is the reason, why only the most outspoken CO members are preferred to be the office bearers. This explains the reason why most of the names on the organisations' membership lists are either fake, relatives of the president and secretary, or simply dead.
Ms. Khatoon Bibi, who is relative of Mr. Rafiq, Secretary of Serri Gorrya organisation, lives in Liberr, but 42 kanal of land is levelled in her name in Serri Goryya. Ten kanal of land is levelled for another community member: daughter of Mr. Rafiq, who, in fact, is a minor, studying in 2nd grade at the local primary school. Ms Khatoon wife of Ishaq, lives in Khaki, but SRSC reported 98 kanal land levelled for her in Serri Goryya, where she has no personal property at all. Total land in possession of Abdur Rehman S/O Faqir Mohammed is 42 Kanal, but 84 kanal land is reported levelled for him. This chain goes on and the pattern repeats itself in all other organisations and all such schemes.
Embezzlement procedures in other schemes are even bizarre. For instance, if the required length of pipe in a drinking water supply scheme from water source to the accumulation point is 2000 feet of 1-inch pipe. The cost is estimated for 10,000 feet of 11/4-inch pipe. When the funds are approved, the community gets the cost for 2,000 feet of 1-inch pipe. The additional cost goes back to SRSC in hard cash that can end up in any pocket (who knows?) from the SSO and Engineer up the ladder to the Regional Programme Officer (RPO) and CEO on the one side, to the Project Manager, Director, and Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) on the other. According to reliable sources, RPO Mansehra, Mohammed Shaoib, had close relations with the former ACS, Shakil Durrani, who inaugurated one of the ghost roads. It is also interested to note that some of the community members told ACS at the occasion of his inaugurating the ghost road that SRSC has nothing to do with the Forest Department constructed road. Such comments were, however, readily ignored and taken for granted.
Summary of some of the non-existent community development schemes and amount of the funds embezzled by SRSC (in Rs.)
- 15 link Roads 5,415,933.00
- 10 Link Roads constructed by District Council but reported by SRSC 4,228,000.00
- 8 Land levelling schemes 3,069,730.00
- Street pavement in four villages 13,200,00.00
- 5 irrigation channels 1,907,910.00
- 5 Drinking Water Supply Schemes 120,000.00
- Andiala Bridge 49,000.00
- 12 link roads in Kala Dhaka (Do drawing, no MB available) 15,204,000.00
- 1 Land levelling Kala Dhaka 296,000.00
- I irrigation scheme in Kala Dhaka 628,000.00
At one place, five ghost irrigation schemes have been reported by SRSC at the cost of Rs. 1,907,910 that do not even exist in reality. The estimated cost of Faqir Abad water supply scheme was Rs. 3,20,000 for 12,500-foot pipe (@ 12,000 feet of 13/4 inch and 500 feet of 1 inch). SRSC, in fact, used 5,300-foot pipe (300 feet of 1 inch and 5000 feet 3/4 inch) from a different water source than indicated in the original plan at the cost of Rs. 288,000.
SRSC staff told the inquiry committee that they have actually paid for the cost of 12,500 feet. According to SRSC staff, recovery will be made from the community for the additional funds issued to them for extra-length and specification of the pipe. The questions are: What kind of estimate did they make? What kind of monitoring was going on that a totally different and cheaper scheme was underway but still SRSC kept on releasing second and third instalment cheques according to the expensive scheme? How would SRSC make recovery from the community alone when it has taken more than 3/4 of all the funds back from them?
SRSC has reported land levelling in some areas that have nothing but only standing mountains. In other instances, like in Harri Shrolian, total community land (including all kind of land) is 518 kanal, but according to SRSC reports, the total land levelled in Harri Shrolian is 720 kanal at the cost of Rs. 645,300.00. The community members have evidence from the concerned government offices regarding the total area of the village. The question they ask is: how did SRSC managed to bring in extra land for levelling? It is an open secret for anyone who wishes to confirm as evidence that not even a single kanal is levelled. There is no existence of the land levelling in Chaman Abad, Jabba Palundrian, Jatabut and Kunder.
In exactly the same manner, SRSC reports to have levelled 478 kanal (60 acre) land in Serri Gorriya whereas the total land of this village is only 343 kanal and 15 marla (43 acre), which include all different types, like Barri, Hoter, Merra and Banna according to its use. In Kala Dhaka, Gharri Hassan Zai, SRSC reports to have levelled 575 Kanal at the cost of Rs. 645,300, where as not even a single kanal land is available as a proof of land levelling - except the area levelled for constructing house of a CO president. In Harri Mera, SRSC reports 725 Kanal land levelling at the cost of Rs. 548,000, whereas only 40-50 metre land is actually levelled for the president of a community organisation.
The procedure for embezzlement is very simple. All the land levelling has been done under fake names of the community members. Some of the community member do not even own a house and SRSC has levelled many acres in their name. According to the Project Engineer, he visited an area for which Rs. 444,000.00 were obtained for levelling 755 kanal land. The Project Engineer visited the site during December 1997 and found the levelling in the residential area of the community but he was assured that the land was being prepared for agriculture purposes. When the engineer visited the site in June 1998, he found a newly constructed building at the levelled land. The House belonged to Mr. Farid Khan, who happened to be the president of a CO.
According to Audit report, the following illegally issued cheques for Kala Dhaka by the MVSP Manager have no record.
| Date | Cheque No. | Amount in Pak Rs. |
| February 13, 1999 | 787351 | 2,000,000.00 |
| May 22, 1999 | 426490 | 4,000,000.00 |
| June 13, 1999 | 436218 | 3,450,000.00 |
| October 4, 1999 | 787360 | 5,000,000.00 |
The rates of land levelling reported by SRSC are also above the market rates of renting a bulldozer. For the bulldozer rented from Agriculture Department, SRSC has paid Rs. 435 per hour in Pulkot, whereas the rates reported by SRSC in Kala Dhaka and Batkar Dhiana are Rs. 1200 per hour. For Mandra link road, reported rate i.e., 850/hr, is once more twice the normal rate.
Normal blasting cost is Rs. 25 per foot, but SRSC reports it as Rs. 50/foot. According to District Council's record the Batkar Dhiana 5-km link road took 72 hours bulldozing to build it from the scratch. Whereas, SRSC also claims construction of the same road from the scratch with 402 hours of bulldozing cost. All the community members testify that they have not witnessed even patch-work on the road from SRSC, let alone constructing it from the scratch.
The community has obtained road completion certificates from the District Council and other departments, which prove the roads were there long before SRSC's intervention in the area. SRSC had erected signboards, claiming construction of these roads until the arrival of inquiry teams. The inquiries have at least helped in removing these signboards. Since too many influential are involved, despite three government enquiries, it is yet to be finalised as to who reported lies and who shared the embezzled funds.
SRSC reports construction of dozens of link roads in Union Council Sher Garrh, whereas an on-site verification proves that no such link road actually exists. For instance, Rs. 845,000.00 each is the reported cost on Batkaryana (5 kilometre) and Sher Ali Doga link roads. None of these exists on the ground. Janda Bir Diarr road starts from Parendoon. The community recalls its construction history as follows: former Chairman District Council Qasim Shah initially started this road from Ratha Depo. His bother, Noor Ud Din Shah then upgraded and further extended it up to 1.5 kilometres. District Council Chairman, Mr. Habib constructed the portion from Ratha Depot to Chanyal. When S M. Tanooli became MPA, he extended it up to Bir Diarr. Habib further extended the road up to Darro after his re-election. The community has obtained completion certificates of all these portions from the concerned departments. SRSC came in and claimed construction of this road from the scratch in different batches - like Chanyal road, Janda road, etc.
It is interesting to note how SRSC is fooling the donors and all those who conduct their audits from the office tables. Chanyal is situated on the eastern and Janda on the western side of the same road. SRSC, however, reports construction of two new roads: Chanyal and Janda link roads at the cost of Rs. 420,000, which are not there at all. Similarly, there is a 22.87 Km road from Sher Garrh to Susel Gali. Initially, it was constructed in 1982. Tanooli improved its condition with the grants of Rs. 50,000 and 30,000 in separate allocations. SRSC came in and reported construction of 14 link roads at the cost of Rs. 4,570,933.00 to all the adjacent villages - in some cases houses - like Sahlimar link road, Serri Gorrya link road, Narra link road, Talian link road, and Pareshanian link road. No reported roads exist at all.
District Council has constructed the following 10 Link Roads.
| Chanyal | Rs. 450,000 |
| Janda | Rs. 450,000 |
| Pathran | Rs. 377,000 |
| Jorian | Rs. 380,000 |
| Mandra | Rs. 450,000 |
| Lang | Rs. 420,000 |
| Darr | Rs. 450,000 |
| Beroyarr | Rs. 350,000 |
| Laberr | Rs. 450,000 |
| Khiyan de Pati | Rs. 450,000 |
Amount embezzled by SRSC for these roads: Rs. 5,415,933.00
The long distances shown by SRSC for its ghost link roads are also not correct. Narra is just 1,800 metres from the main road. According to SRSC record, it has linked Narra to the main road, but all the inspection teams are witness to the fact that there is no road or anything similar to a road in existence. Distance of Preshanian to main road is just 1,500 metres. SRSC has also invented some names like Haji Chamen Abad, Faqir Abad just to form organisations with the co-opting personalities, who could share the booty with SRSC. The former are just two houses where as the latter is comprised of five houses of three bothers.
In Kumarriyan, SRSC reports to have constructed irrigation channels at the cost of Rs. 300,000. On the site evidence and record of the Union Council proves that SRSC constructed only 30 x 60 feet water tank on the ground and used pipes, where as the channels were actually constructed by Watershed Department and the earlier complementary storage facilities by Union Council.
It is interesting to note that there is no completion report from MVSP Project Engineer of any of the community development schemes reported as complete by SRSC from 1997 onwards. The community members took the Project Engineer to a water supply scheme and asked him to find out as to how Rs. 297,500 were reported spent on a 27 feet 9 inch deep dug well, which comes to Rs. 10,625 per foot, whereas normal cost of digging a 5 feed radius well in stony mountainous area is Rs. 300 per foot. Report from SRSC does not mention if it is a dug well or water is brought in from a source. It simply says: Water supply scheme completed at a cost of Rs. 297,500.
On the administrative mismanagement side, SRSC field staff is adept in making fake Travelling Allowance (TA) bills. Hard evidence shows that the same vehicle is reported used by three, four different staff members, in three totally disjointed locations on the same day at the same time. They mention fake distances for these locations and no one is there to verify. According to rules, they can only claim TA if they go outside the 16 Km radius from their office. A location that is one kilometre by walking distance and 3.5 kilometre at the most by car from the office is shown as 32 km. This is a daily routine, continued since the inception of the programme and will remain until the end of SRSC.
Those who claim to be doing extensive and perfect audits need to take some lessons from the ordinary community members, who from the shreds of SRSC record can dig out such fake reports. Whereas the auditors, despite availability and access to all the record, cannot find out the routes through which the project funds travel into the pockets of SRSC staff. We, the people of NWFP, have to refund this borrowed money eaten up by SRSC in different ways under the broad label of poverty alleviation.
On repeated requests of the community, the Interior Ministry directed government of NWFP to arrange for an inquiry into the complaints. An inquiry team was organised under Chairmanship of DIG Works, Abdul Jalil Mughal. The inquiry team visited Mansehra regional office, met the community members who lodged the complaints but wrongly reported that when "the inspection of each unit was carried out, not a single person from their side (complainants) was available." In fact, the team did not even visit the sites in its first visit to Mansehra. The report however confirmed that the little work done "is so disappointing that it gives the impression that no work is done."
Although report of the first visit of the first inquiry hold "both the project authorities and SRSC staff-for showing negligence on their part in exercising proper control," but the community took serious note of the wrong reporting by the team. It insisted that being residents of the area they know that not even 20% of what SRSC claims is actually done. They visited and complained to the Chief Secretary. There was a re-inquiry. According to reliable sources, Chief Secretary of NWFP wrote on the final report that "this is a fit case for NAB."
However, no action was taken for a long time and the community came to know that former ACS (Mr. Ijaz Qureshi) has shelved the inquiry in a PRB meeting. The community members personally complained to the Chief Secretary of NWFP that ACS was blocking any action on the inquiry into the corruption case against SRSC. The Chief Secretary marked the application from the community members to ACS, asking, "What is the progress on this case." He sent the complainants to see and deliver the complaint to ACS. However, so far, everything is standstill. It is important to mention that sister of Mr. Ijaz Qureshi was serving in SRSC and his brother, Iqbal Qureshi, obtained staff training consultancy against the set rules of the game. Objections were raised to CEO and Chief HRD's bypassing other qualified, relevant and cost effective options for the same training, but to please Ijaz Qureshi, his brother was the only pick any way.
Later the Governor Inspection Team conducted an inquiry on the insistence of the community under the chairmanship of Shaukat Zaman Baber in October 2000 for about 6 days in the first and 3 days in the second instance. Now the inquiry report is complete but Mr. Shaukat Zaman has been transferred to FDC and there is no responsible person to follow it up. The new chairman of GIT would have to go through everything from the scratch. The ball is now in the governor NWFP's court anyway and as the saying goes in Pushto he would not be able to cover the sun with his finger even if he has some sympathies either with SRSC of the government functionaries who were closely involved with SRSC and received gifts and benedictions in return. In the meanwhile, disappointment of the community grows that asks: if we have made wrong complaints, why do not the inquiry commissions hold us responsible for lying and wasting government resources and time.
The community is extremely disappointed and reminds the outsiders that the military government promised that identity of those providing information about corruption would be kept confidential. They rightly ask: "Why is no one taking any action when we are not only making our identity public but also give legally binding undertakings that we are even ready to get punished if someone proved us wrong? Since June 2000, three inquiry teams have visited them, but no action has been taken so far.
In the meanwhile, SRSC has attempted to threaten, harass, cajole, persuade or purchase the community members who are digging out facts. Even the Project Manager, Afzal Latif, offered up to Rs. 1,000,000 under the label of schemes to shut their mouths. Fake police cases were registered against complainants and their relatives on the planning of SRSC and involvement of SP Mansehra. The complainants were attacked even in the presence of the Governor's Inquiry team.
According to the Project Engineer, the regular procedure for sanctioning development schemes for SRSC was to submit feasibility and survey reports to the Project Engineer. After necessary recommendations and amendments suggested by Project Engineer, SRSC would resubmit the schemes for final approval and sanction by the Project Manager. Initially, this procedure was followed, but after the get together of SRSC staff with Project Manager, Afzal Latif, and Project Director, all the rules were completely bypassed.
Project Engineer and Accountant refused to get involved in the game that was played against the prescribed rules. SRSC obtained the cheques in violation of all the set procedures. Copy of the auditor's objection to these unauthorised checks is published with this report for public information. Rs. 16,100,000 was taken in the same manner for 14 schemes in Kala Dhaka. On-site verification shows that out of the fourteen, there was repair-work on just two link roads. The other 12 schemes do not even exist.
The inspection teams refused to visit Kala Dhaka because SRSC staff told them that they do not have any record of the roads in Kala Dhaka. Attitude of tribal people was cited as a reason for keeping no record because they did not allow SRSC to do the required surveys. At this, the community members produced copies of SRSC record and asked the inquiry team not to miss the chance of visiting the site and confirming that there is no existence of the reported schemes.
We must not lose sight of the most important fact that it is not only the story of Mansehra region. In other programme areas of SRSC situation is the same. All one needs is to dig out the facts. For instance, a passing discussion with a key staff member of SRSC reveals that in Kohat region many community development schemes have been done just to please Masood Bangush (from SDU/PE&D) in violation of the rules because these schemes are not for any community organisation. In the same region, many single households have been blessed with 3 to 4 PI schemes, which means the set criteria and procedures are not properly followed at all. Even in Lachi area under UNDP and now DFID, there have been instances of transporting activists in Vans from one meeting to another to fake active community involvement everywhere.
It is revealed by reliable internal sources regarding corruption in training funds that the cost of a 7-day community training in leadership and management skills is reported to be Rs. 7000 or 7,500. UNDP, Novib and BADP have been charged at this rate. When the regional offices conducted these courses, they used to report full utilisation of the budget, i.e. about Rs.140,000 per training. The regions were not providing any residential facility to the participants. When these courses were centralised at Peshawar, the cost of the few initial courses despite providing them residential facility at Agriculture University came to about Rs. 40,000 - 45,000 per course.
With the increased corruption at lower level in the Head Office, this cost went up to Rs. 65,000 per course within the span of just one year. The questions that arise are:
- When the residential training at Peshawar cost about Rs. 50,000 at the most, why did SRSC over-budgeted, and continue to over-budget, the training cost?
- Where did the over-budgeted amount go in the regions when they were actually spending much less than Rs. 40,000 per training but charge it to donors at the rate of Rs. 140,000 per training or Rs. 7,500 per participant?
- Where did the extra amount go in the case of centralised training, when the actual cost does not exceed Rs. 65,000 (with some corruption) at the most?
- Did SRSC management try to find out as to why the cost of residential training is way less than the cost in the regional offices (where participants are only provided with lunch), and where does the extra amount go?
When multiplied by the number of training conducted, the extra amount that the regions and Head Office have charged so far comes to millions of rupees. All this extra-amount is charged to the donors, who are already paying staff salaries, capital cost and administrative expenses. More important to note is the fact that cost of the same training has been raised to Rs. 9,500 per participant in the new proposal to DFID, which means SRSC would be saving three times more than the actual cost of the training, which will be spent on unbudgeted activities, which could be any from embezzlement to luxury parties and mismanagement. Same is the case of over-budgeting and under-spending with other training, like Basic Course for the community and other kind of technical training or one day review workshops, etc. One can only wish if the auditors could find the gross embezzlements in this regard.
SRSC budgets reveal that SRSC is too much expensive organisation for carrying out development activities. For instance, the budget that it has proposed to DFID for two years has only 20 per cent development expenditures that is Rs. 22,051,000; 17 per cent capital expenditure that is Rs. 18,761,000; and 63 per cent administrative expenditure that is Rs. 68,580,574. Similarly, for the same period PPAF is being charged Rs. 76,928,285 for capacity building of staff, Rs. 3,220,000 for capital expenses, Rs. 44,370,285 as operational cost and Rs. 15,546,571 as staff salaries etc. As a whole, this makes up 140,065,141 as 53 per cent of the total Rs. 262,077,137 that SRSC intends to spend during this year. Together with other funding sources, the administrative cost remains between 70-80% of the total SRSC budgets. Despite all these administrative expenses, it's a pity if SRSC still feels compelled to steal away funds from those reserved for community training (which is just 11% of the total budget in the case of PPAF). In addition, embezzlement in the same training funds at the regional level is nothing less than a serious crime against the suffering masses of rural poor.
The sum and substance is that it is beyond the scope of a newspaper report to mention every aspect of a corruption that is spread of seven districts, 10 years, and hundreds of community schemes. It would be foolish to think that the corruption activities were reported from on Union council in Mansehra; hence, the inquiry should be limited to that area and its schemes only. Now that the ways of SRSC's committing crime are known, it is an opportunity for the concerned departments and organisations to utilise their resources and dig out further mismanagement of public funds and resources in other programme areas in the same manner - not through table audits.
It is not the question of which personality or which organisation is involved in corruption. The question is: Did corruption take place? Is it still an ongoing process? Is it institutionalised as a matter of deliberate policy? Did the management and BoD intentionally ignored the reality and made efforts to cover up? The answer to all these questions is a definite yes. The government has to take action regardless of the personalities, organisations and departments involved because this report is just a fraction of a much deeper and wider filth of corruption, chicanery and deceit.
Concluded.
Evidence provided to The Frontier Post on 6th January 2001.
1. Copy of the first government inquiry that was changed later, even though it agrees to corruption and mismanagement by SRSC and MVSP.
2. Copy of the Project Engineer to the Project Director.
3. Copy of the Audit Report page that shows fictitious withdrawal of Rs. 4,40,000.00
4. Copy of the Audit Report page that shows unauthorised transfer of funds amounting to Rs. 9,450,000.00
5. Letter of the Project engineer, when he was assured by SRSC that let the project complete it period and then we SRSC will show you actual progress but until today (seven months after the project completion date) schemes are as much non-existent as they were then.
6. List of the link roads and levelling schemes along with their cost that SRSC reports to have completed, but actually not even exist.
7. List of the land owners reported by SRSC in Hari Sarolian, which includes all the fake names of the community members and fake land ownership.
8. Confirmation of the land actually in possession of different community members, obtained from the government (Daftar-e-mal).
9. School certificate of four minor girls, shown by SRSC as members of the Women organisations and levelled several acre land in their name.
10. Certificate from school and other concerned that shows there is no village by the name of Faqir Abad as reported by SRSC. There are five houses and just three families, out of which SRSC has formed a community organisation and undertook several schemes in their name.
11. Certificate from Tehsildar, that has been attested by four concerned staff members that there is no village by the name of Faqir Abad.
12. Certificate from the Police station to testify that there is no village by the name of Faqir Abad. (It is important to note that Faqir Abad is not the only fake village shown by SRSC in its record.)
13. Details of land levelling done in fake names, the actual land ownerships and the fake areas reported levelled by SRSC in their names. Also description of some water supply schemes.
14. Copy of the orders issued by Chief Minister, when the community complained to him in 1998 that SRSC is doing schemes for the individuals and influential without any regard to the stated claims of "Social Guidance" and helping poorest of the poor.
15. Copy of the letter that was sent from Ministry of Interior to the Chief Secretary NWFP for conducting an inquiry into SRSC affairs.
16. Quotation from the market about rates of the water supply pipes. The market rate was Rs. 15.55/ft for 3/4 inch pipe, whereas SRSC estimated it at Rs. 22/ft. Similarly, rates for 1 inch pipe were Rs. 20.55/ft, but SRSC estimated it for Rs. 26. This is the overestimation in the quantity and quality of the material for specifications of the schemes which were never materialised. For example the specification shown in the Faqir Abad scheme was for 12,500 feet of pipe, whereas in reality only 5,000 feet were used.
17. Certificate from Divisional Forest Officer for Susal Gali to Goria Dann road, that it was constructed by forest Department but SRSC reported it in its own progress.
18. Certificate of different schemes completed by District Council, but SRSC reported them in their progress as new projects done by SRSC. In most cases SRSC didn't even repair them.
19. Enquiry report into a Water Supply schemes, whereby the specifications of the project were changed from utilisation of 12500 feet of pipe to just 5,200 feet. This report mentions alteration up to 8000 feet, which was later proved wrong. The fact is that specification were not changed, but wrong specifications were reported to over-budget each scheme and make a bigger margin for embezzlement. Otherwise, why no refund or recovery has been made in this scheme?
20. Details of schemes in Kala Dhaka as reported by SRSC, out of which 12 are totally non-existent and on the other two, partial work has been done. Like instead of land levelling for agriculture, land of the CO president was levelled for house construction. Apart from this, there is no drawing or measurement basis available for any of these schemes.
21. List of the schemes reported complete by SRSC. Investigations in Sher Garh areas shows that none of the mentioned roads (108-123) are present on the site. Similarly eight link roads in Parthena shown on Page 3 (91-99)are non-existent. Inquiries in other areas will reveal the same irregularities and corruption.
22. Map of Kumarriyan irrigation scheme as discussed in the report. The two 14 x 27 tanks have been constructed by Union Council in 80s'. SRSC constructed the 30 x 60 tank that is not functioning and instead of irrigation channels it used pipes that has rendered the scheme useless. However, SRSC reported everything in its own progress at the cost of Rs. 300,000.
23. Map of the ghost Link Roads shown by SRSC in its progress but they do not exist. This map shows that the main road from A to B is constructed by District council, from B to C by Watershed Department and from D to C Forest and District Council. The community members and the government officers testify that SRSC has not even improved these roads - let alone constructing them from the scratch. However, it pocketed the amount for the new construction.
24. This map shows the 22.87 km road from Sher Garh to Susil Gali. From As to S it is constructed by district Council, from H to CH it is constructed by Watershed Department and from A to E by District Council. The link roads and the cost shown against them are all fake. There is no link road and not even a cent has been spent.
25. This map shows the road from Sher Garh (A) to Jhingil (D). From A to B it was constructed by C&W and From B to D (2380 metres) by District Council. The link roads and their cost shown in the map are not existent.
26. In this map the link road shown at point X is Khian de Pati Link road reported by SRSC, whereas neither the road exists, not is any village or hamlet or anything by this fake name. Other details are given in Urdu.
27. Copy of the letter that was written by some staff members to CEO SRSC. Apart from other things, it mentions CEO's felling into the knees of RPO Mansehra, who has resigned now. The question is: Why was the CEO not interested in conducting an internal inquiry to set the things aright when he got the first complaint in mid 1999? Why was he reluctant in taking any action? And why did he fell into the knees of a Junior officer - both in age and professional experience or position? This is not mentioned in the F. Post Report. Actually an organisation doesn't go for secrecy, nepotism and favouritism at all levels unless it has something rotten at its core to hide
Note: Those who are interested in obtaining just this evidence can obtain it from the Frontier Post office. Those who want to personally visit the community to see the wilderness without any SRSC constructed link roads; to see the long ago roads constructed by other departments and reported by SRSC in its own progress; to see the mismanaged schemes due to large scale embezzlement and to hear from the community members the stories of fake organisations, fake memberships, fake villages and much more, please contact any of the following at Bhutto Bandi, Sher Garh, Oghi, Mansehra.
Mr. Abdur Razaq (Retired from Army)
Haji. Abdul Ghafar (Ex-Chairman District council)
Mr. Abdul Aziz (Chairman Zakat and Usher)
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali. (Amir Jamat-e-Islami PF-46)
Phone (Mr. Abdur Razaq)
Home : 0987-570200
Office : 0987570038 (off these days due to winter vacations)
Concluded.
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Manager
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff 2
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.