The Audit Report of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs has revealed the agreement made with the contractor to reconstruct Zikra Mosque under the contractor finance policy involved graft.
According to the audit report, prerequisites were not met when the contract was signed and the contract did not match the paper on rebuilding Zikra mosque as prepared by the ministry.
The contractor was tasked with developing a 10-storey mosque to include 3-storeys for prayer and the rest as office spaces to be leased. The biggest issue highlighted in the audit report was the registry of the land was unavailable. It further stated the Islamic ministry wrote to the housing ministry on August 26, 2018 to get the registry.
In response, the housing ministry said the registry of the land was unavailable and there was no document to indicate the land was registered before. Hence, the audit report noted the registry was unavailable and the ministry did not have any document to indicate who the land owner was when the contract was signed.
The project was contracted for USD 8.4 million. While the contractor was required to invest USD 6.4 million, the remaining amount was to be financed from the state.
In the initial documents, it was decided 6-storeys would be given to the contractor for a period of 10 years. However, according to the report, the agreement signed stated stated the contractor will be given 7-storeys for 10 years.
The rental income estimated from the building was also wrongly estimated. In this regard, USD 1.5 million was estimated as lease income from the building for the first 10 years and the income was estimated to be USD 0.79 million every year after the first 10 years. According to the terms of the agreement, the ministry will be provided only with 3-storeys of prayer space and no lease income will be given to the ministry.
Although the project to reconstruct Zikra mosque was deemed a mega project, the report stated the ministry did not counsel with the Attorney General's office. Additionally, Bill of Quantity (BOQ), technical specifications, structural drawings and architectural drawings were also not submitted to the ministry on the date required.
The report further stated there was no document at the ministry to indicate the proposal was officially received by the ministry. The date of completion in the proposal and the contract were also different as 25 months was specified in the contract, although the proposal had a 23-month period to complete the project.
The case is currently at court and the contractor is yet to commence the project.