Asif Mahmud sends legal notice to ACC official

Asif Mahmud seeks retraction over ACC official’s corruption remarks

Thebangladaily.com – NCP spokesperson Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan has issued a legal notice demanding that an Anti-Corruption Commission official withdraw comments suggesting that corruption allegations against him had an “initial truth.”

The notice was sent to ACC deputy director and public relations officer Akhtarul Islam by Supreme Court lawyer Muhammad Rafiqul Islam Jony, who is acting for Asif Mahmud. A press release issued on Friday said the notice was delivered on Thursday and sets out a 15-day deadline for an unconditional withdrawal.

The dispute centres on remarks made by Akhtarul Islam at a September 2 press conference. During that briefing, he said the ACC had found “initial truth” in allegations involving transfers, appointments and promotions connected to Asif Mahmud. The comments later spread widely through news coverage and social-media posts.

“Initial truth”

Asif Mahmud’s legal team argues that the phrase created the public impression that allegations had already been established, despite there being no completed investigation or identified evidence supporting such a conclusion. The notice describes the resulting attention as a media trial that harmed both his personal standing and political reputation.

For public figures, statements made during an anti-corruption inquiry can have consequences well beyond the formal process. Even where an allegation remains unproven, language used by officials can shape public opinion rapidly. The notice therefore asks that future public comments be limited to verified, evidence-based information.

Request for a formal correction

The press release said Akhtarul Islam later informed journalists in the ACC beat WhatsApp group that the wording had been used by mistake. He reportedly asked that reports exclude the phrase “initial truth.” However, the legal notice maintains that the original press-conference statement was never formally rescinded or corrected.

Asif Mahmud is seeking a withdrawal delivered in the same manner as the original statement. The demand is significant because the contested words were made in a public briefing and then repeated across multiple platforms. A private clarification, the notice contends, would not adequately address the effect of the earlier remarks.

The legal notice also challenges details within the allegations relating to the Department of Youth Development. It says claims involving administrative decisions and promotions do not match the actual sequence of events.

Questions raised over staffing claims

One issue concerns the cancellation of additional responsibilities held by upazila youth development officers. The allegations referred to 38 officers, while the notice states that 112 officers had their extra duties cancelled. It says the action was taken to implement an order issued by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.

The notice also rejects claims that Asif Mahmud had any role in the promotion of 150 assistant upazila youth development officers to posts as upazila youth development officers. His lawyer describes that allegation as baseless and points to the dates involved.

Asif Mahmud resigned from his position as adviser on December 10, 2025. The promotions in question took place on May 11, 2026, five months after his resignation. They also occurred three months after the BNP government assumed office, the notice says.

That timeline forms a central part of the legal argument. The notice suggests that attributing responsibility for decisions made after his departure requires clear proof, particularly when the promotions were completed under a later administration.

Potential legal action

Akhtarul Islam has been asked to comply within 15 days. If he does not, the notice warns that legal proceedings may be initiated under Section 500 of the Penal Code and other applicable laws.

Section 500 deals with punishment for defamation. By citing it, the notice signals that Asif Mahmud’s side views the matter not simply as a disagreement over wording, but as a potentially actionable injury to reputation.

The episode highlights the sensitivity surrounding public communications by agencies responsible for examining corruption allegations. Investigations can involve matters of major public interest, but officials’ language may also carry substantial weight before any finding is reached. The dispute now turns on whether the disputed statement will be formally withdrawn and whether further legal steps follow.