KARACHI: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Karachi has also launched an inquiry into alleged irregularities and advance payments made in the Karachi Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Yellow Line project, according to NAB sources.
NAB Chairman has directed the Director General of NAB Karachi to investigate the matter, sources said.
The bureau will examine the release of advance payments worth Rs8.5 billion in the BRT Yellow Line project and review what work was completed after the payments were made and what remained pending, NAB sources added.
The inquiry will also assess all relevant aspects, including the payment process and whether legal procedures were followed.
Former Project Director of the BRT Yellow Line project, Zameer Ahmed Abbasi, has already been arrested in connection with the case. He was taken into custody by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) from Lahore after his bail application was rejected.
The ACE investigation is still ongoing, while the challan has not yet been submitted before the court.
Earlier, the ACE registered a case against Abbasi, who was serving as Project Director of the Karachi Mobility Project (KMP), along with former Director Procurement Jhaman Das and other officials over alleged corruption and irregularities in the project.
An anti-corruption court had dismissed Abbasi’s bail plea in an Rs8.5 billion corruption case related to the BRT Yellow Line project.
During the hearing, the court raised questions over the payment mechanism and observed that the circumstances indicated the possible involvement of “big players” in the case.
The special anti-corruption court heard Abbasi’s bail application regarding alleged financial irregularities in the BRT Yellow Line project. The Sindh government’s public prosecutor, however, did not oppose the bail plea.
Abbasi’s lawyer argued that payments were released only after fulfilling required conditions and securing bank guarantees.
BRT Karachi corruption: Court rejects Zameer Abbasi’s bail plea, says ‘big players’ may be involved
The court questioned whether all terms and conditions had been completed before the payments were issued. The defence lawyer responded that it was the prosecution’s responsibility to prove any violation of rules.