Tulip Siddiq Raises Concerns Over Alleged ‘Fake’ Documents in Bangladesh Corruption Trial

Published: 21 September ‘2025. the English Chronicle Desk. English Chronicle Online

Tulip Siddiq, the former City minister and current Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate, has publicly expressed serious concerns regarding the use of allegedly “fake” documents in her ongoing corruption trial in Bangladesh. Siddiq, who is being tried in absentia, fears that these purported forgeries could be part of an attempt to secure her conviction, a situation that has drawn international attention and stirred controversy over judicial procedures in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka.

The controversy escalated after images of what were described as a Bangladeshi national identity card and a passport in Siddiq’s name were published by the UK’s Times newspaper and Bangladesh’s Prothom Alo. The former minister categorically rejected the authenticity of these documents, asserting that they were fabricated. “I’ve struggled with fake news for one year now about all my crimes. No evidence has been produced. So now fake documentation. And I guess the next step is fake evidence,” Siddiq told reporters.

Siddiq’s trial, which began in early August, involves her and 20 other individuals, including close family members such as her aunt, mother, brother, and sister. The charges allege that Siddiq influenced her aunt, Sheikh Hasina—who was ousted as Bangladesh’s prime minister last year—to secure a plot of land in a Dhaka suburb for family members. Siddiq has consistently denied the allegations, describing them as politically motivated attempts to tarnish her reputation.

In the UK, Siddiq was previously investigated by Keir Starmer’s independent adviser on the ministerial code after allegations stemming from Bangladesh surfaced. The investigation, concluded in January, cleared Siddiq of wrongdoing but noted that it was “regrettable that she was not more alert to the potential reputational risks” arising from her familial ties and her role as economic secretary to the Treasury. Following the emergence of the allegations, Siddiq resigned from her ministerial positions, citing the distraction caused by the situation and its impact on government work.

The recently published documents, purportedly a national identity card and a Bangladeshi passport, were said by newspapers to contradict Siddiq’s prior statements that she had never held a national ID card and that her Bangladeshi passport had expired over two decades ago. Siddiq maintains her position, emphasizing that the documents are false and expressing concern that they may be a precursor to further fabrications. She underscored that she had always been transparent about her dual citizenship, acknowledging her Bangladeshi heritage alongside her British nationality, and that she had informed the Treasury upon assuming ministerial office.

A declaration submitted to the Treasury, which The Guardian has reviewed, supports Siddiq’s assertion of dual citizenship. Born in London to Bangladeshi parents, she obtained a Bangladeshi passport during her childhood, which expired when she turned 18 and was not subsequently renewed. Siddiq expressed bewilderment at the publication of the allegedly forged documents, suggesting they could be an experiment to gauge public reaction or media credulity. “One thing they could be doing is that they’re fabricating these things to see how well it lands, because then they’re going to fabricate evidence, maybe just to see how much the British press swallow it. It could be something like that,” she remarked.

Reports have claimed that records indicate a Bangladeshi passport was issued to Siddiq in London in September 2001, when she was 19, and that a national identity card was issued in January 2011. It was further alleged that she applied to renew her passport in January 2011 at the Agargaon passport office in Dhaka and had a registered voter number. Siddiq has denied all these claims, asserting that none of the details correspond to reality and that the documents are entirely fabricated.

Siddiq’s past statements have also been cited by prosecutors as potential evidence against her. In a 2017 broadcast interview with Channel 4, she was asked whether she would intervene in the case of Ahmad bin Quasem, a Bangladeshi lawyer trained in the UK who had allegedly been abducted in Bangladesh. Siddiq responded, emphasizing her British status: “Are you aware I am a British MP? I was born in London. Are you implying that I am a Bangladeshi politician? Because I don’t think that’s the right thing to imply. Are you calling me Bangladeshi? Because I am British, be very careful what you’re saying because I’m a British MP from Hampstead and Kilburn.”

Siddiq has clarified that her remarks were taken out of context by those seeking to cast doubt on her credibility. She explained that she had intended to convey that, while she is of Bangladeshi heritage, she was not a Bangladeshi MP and was not handling local casework in Bangladesh. “There’s nothing about citizenship,” she insisted, reiterating that her dual nationality had always been disclosed appropriately.

Compounding Siddiq’s concerns is her lack of access to legal representation during the trial in Dhaka. Despite the anti-corruption commission’s claim that summonses were sent to an address listed on her alleged Bangladeshi documents, Siddiq maintains that she has never lived at the location stated and has not been contacted by the authorities in any formal capacity. She describes the entire situation as procedurally flawed, raising questions about the fairness of the trial and the reliability of evidence presented in her absence.

The trial has drawn international attention, with legal experts and political observers noting the potential implications for the credibility of judicial proceedings in Bangladesh. Siddiq’s case underscores the challenges faced by individuals with transnational identities, particularly when allegations involve familial connections to former political leaders. The use of alleged documentation, whether authentic or forged, adds another layer of complexity, highlighting concerns about due process, evidentiary standards, and potential political influence in legal proceedings.

Political analysts have observed that Siddiq’s situation could set a precedent for how expatriate politicians or dual citizens are treated in judicial matters involving home-country allegations. The allegations, whether substantiated or fabricated, carry reputational risks that extend beyond Bangladesh’s borders, potentially impacting Siddiq’s political career and public perception in the UK.

Despite these pressures, Siddiq has remained resolute in her defense, emphasizing transparency, adherence to legal and ethical standards, and her commitment to truth. Her insistence on challenging the authenticity of the documents and the circumstances of the trial reflects a broader concern about accountability, procedural fairness, and the responsible use of legal instruments in politically sensitive cases.

As the trial continues, Siddiq’s legal team and supporters in the UK are monitoring developments closely, advocating for her right to representation and fair treatment under the law. The situation has sparked debate about the intersection of politics, media reporting, and judicial processes, particularly when cross-border implications and public perception play a significant role in shaping narratives.

In conclusion, Tulip Siddiq’s warnings about the alleged use of fabricated documents in her Bangladesh trial highlight critical issues surrounding judicial integrity, media influence, and political accountability. While Siddiq remains steadfast in her denial of the corruption charges and insists on her right to a fair trial, the unfolding events underscore the potential risks faced by individuals navigating complex legal, political, and national identities. The international community, media observers, and legal experts are likely to follow the trial closely, given its ramifications for both Siddiq’s political career and broader questions of procedural justice.

Siddiq’s case, with its intersection of family ties, political controversy, and alleged procedural irregularities, remains a focal point for ongoing discourse on fairness, transparency, and the ethical responsibilities of both governments and media institutions in reporting and adjudicating politically sensitive cases.