UK MP Tulip Siddiq is facing increasing pressure following the change of power in Bangladesh after the July uprising. As the niece of ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, she is being linked to various alleged corruption scandals involving the former government.
Earlier, she resigned from her ministerial role after reportedly receiving a London flat as a gift from a close associate of her aunt. Despite this, she remains a sitting MP in the British Parliament, backed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s confidence.
Now, Tulip has come under scrutiny once again—this time over a luxury flat registered in her name in Bangladesh, according to a report published by the Daily Mail on Saturday (April 5).
The report states that Siddiq is being questioned in the British Parliament over whether she misled lawmakers about the £600,000 flat in Bangladesh.
Tulip Siddiq, in a statement to Daily Mail, denied any wrongdoing, claiming she received the flat as a gift from her parents in 2002 and legally transferred ownership to her sister, Azmira, in 2015. She insists that the flat was handed over the same year she was elected as an MP.
Records from the UK’s Westminster Register confirm that Siddiq held joint ownership of the property with a family member until June 2015, and that it was transferred the following month.
However, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) of Bangladesh has seized the flat at its request and launched a formal investigation into Siddiq's assets. The ACC maintains that Tulip is still the legal owner of the flat, a claim supported by documents obtained last week by Daily Mail from the Dhaka Sub-Registry Office.
Now, a Bangladeshi court will determine the flat’s true ownership.
Previously, the ACC reported that Siddiq attempted to transfer the property to her sister through a hiba deed—a form of Islamic gift declaration—back in 2015. A hiba allows a family member to give away assets out of love and affection.
However, the ACC has challenged the authenticity of the hiba, claiming it is fraudulent. The barrister allegedly involved in executing the deed has denied any involvement and accused the parties of forging his signature.
