The Anti-Corruption Commission was established in 2004 with the noble purpose of combating, controlling, and preventing corruption. The goal of the institution is to foster and spread a strong anti-corruption culture at all levels of society. According to the law governing the commission, it is meant to be an independent, autonomous, and impartial body. However, to what extent the commission has maintained its independence remains questionable. Currently, the individual who serves as the chief adviser of the interim government was, just a few months ago, standing in a steel cage in court as a defendant in a case filed by the ACC, which was the highest form of humiliation for him.
The desperation with which the ACC’s lawyers pursued Dr. Yunus has not been seen in any other case, as far as we know. Recently, on September 4th, Daily Manab Zamin published a report titled “The ACC was preparing four more cases against Dr. Yunus,” which mentioned that the previous case filed against Dr. Yunus was part of following the ruling Awami League government’s “prescription.” The report further stated that the ACC’s stance against Dr. Yunus stemmed from former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s personal wishes.
In light of this incident, what will be the ACC’s response? Have they taken any steps so far to verify the truth of these claims? This is a matter that must be taken seriously.
Now the question is, how will the Anti-Corruption Commission prove its impartiality and regain public trust? Ensuring transparency and fairness in the commission’s operations is of utmost importance; otherwise, doubts about its effectiveness will continue to persist.
It is crucial to take immediate action to ensure that this institution, established to combat crime, does not turn into a toothless, clawless tiger under the government’s influence. The people of the country have long observed such passivity in governance. Interestingly, following the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government on August 5th, the ACC has become vocal again in its fight against corruption. However, without proper reforms, if a political government comes to power in the future, doubts about the ACC’s effectiveness will persist.
At the end of last month, Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) put forward a 55-point proposal aimed at establishing democracy, good governance, and accountability in the country, with special emphasis on internal reforms within the ACC.
After the army-backed government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, when the Awami League came to power in 2009, then ACC Chairman Golam Rahman compared the Anti-Corruption Commission to a toothless tiger upon joining the organization. He accused that the process of diminishing the commission’s power was underway by metaphorically cutting its claws. At the end of his term, during his farewell with journalists, he expressed regret and dissatisfaction over the failure to amend the ACC law.
A decade later, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, the High Court observed that the Anti-Corruption Commission should not behave like a toothless tiger. That same year, the outgoing chairman, Iqbal Mahmud, attempted to position the ACC more strongly, yet he was not significantly successful in gaining public trust. If the chairmen of the ACC themselves express dissatisfaction with their operations, it becomes clear that “something is wrong in the system.”
After the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government on August 5th, following a student and public uprising, Dr. Muhammad Yunus’ interim government is now focusing on state reforms, reflecting the demands of the protesting students. Corruption and authoritarian practices in government institutions during the previous regime have become the focal point of media discussions. In this context, as part of state reform efforts, the government has initiated a reorganization of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and appointed Dr. Iftekharuzzaman, the executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), as the new head.
If Dr. Iftekharuzzaman can successfully reform the toothless ACC, the question may arise as to where he can take the institution. However, it is hoped that under his leadership, a new direction will emerge in the ACC’s operations. Before delving into the current course of the ACC’s activities, it is essential to discuss its background.
The primary objective of establishing the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was to curb corruption, but over time, it often became a toothless tiger in practice. Past experiences suggest that without proper reforms, questions regarding the commission’s effectiveness will persist. If Dr. Iftekharuzzaman succeeds in strengthening the ACC through reforms, it could potentially bring about positive change for the state. This initiative toward state reform could inspire hope among the public that strict measures will be taken against corruption and that public trust can be restored.
In 2007, after Dr. Fakhruddin’s caretaker government came to power, the ACC became more active. That government was keen on implementing various anti-corruption activities, which gained popularity among a significant portion of the general public, especially those outside of politics. During that time, over 150 government officials, politicians, and security personnel were charged with embezzlement and other forms of corruption, with many of them being sent to jail.
During the One-Eleven situation, the ACC took the most effective measures in its history under Dr. Fakhruddin’s government. However, after the Awami League came to power in 2009, for reasons unknown, the ACC’s activities became subdued again. The commission was seemingly engaged in superficial tasks aimed at catching minor offenders. Meanwhile, key figures in the ruling government have passed 15 years without giving much importance to the ACC, raising significant questions about the institution’s effectiveness and public trust.
The pressing question now is why the ACC deviated from its purpose and how it can once again play an effective role in combating corruption. It is crucial for the ACC to fulfill its proper role in the eyes of the public; otherwise, it will have no meaningful impact in the fight against corruption.
Broadly speaking, although the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) claims to be independent and neutral, various governments in the past have used the institution according to their own interests. Now, the question arises: was there any hidden influence of the previous government behind the ACC’s actions against Dr. Yunus? Is the ACC essentially functioning as a subordinate institution to the government?
If it is proven that the ACC has become a subordinate body, then who among the officials is responsible? In such a large institution, there are likely many officials who, in order to maintain their positions, may have acted according to the government’s signals. In this situation, ensuring the transparency and fairness of the ACC’s operations is extremely important.
If any officials within the commission are compelled to act under government pressure, it will undermine public trust and raise doubts about the commission’s ability to combat corruption effectively. Therefore, in the current situation, effective measures are needed to reform the ACC internally and to safeguard its independence.
To understand how government control over the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) can be maintained, one can look at certain weak laws or regulations. For example, Section 24 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004 states, “Subject to the provisions of this Act, the commissioners shall be independent in the performance of their duties under this Act.” However, Chapter 8 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules 2007 mentions, “The Commission may request the government to second any of its officials or employees to another position, and upon receiving such a request, the government may second the said official or employee to any ministry or department of the government.”
This duality in provisions—granting independence on one hand but allowing government intervention in staffing on the other—creates a potential avenue for government influence, weakening the commission’s ability to act freely and independently.
The same chapter further states that “the Commission may request the government to second a necessary number of officials and employees from any ministry or department for the performance of its duties.” A crucial aspect of these regulations is that the government can subtly appoint preferred individuals to the ACC and remove those it dislikes, enabling it to implement its agenda effectively.
For this reason, such regulations are considered contradictory to the concept of ‘independence’ associated with the ACC. If the government can influence the commission’s activities, the independence and effectiveness of the ACC will be called into question. To ensure that the commission can genuinely operate independently in its fight against corruption, it is essential to reconsider the laws and regulations governing it.
Regarding the selection committee mentioned in the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Act for appointing commissioners, the process for selecting impartial and competent commissioners is not straightforward. Specifically, if the selection committee included a former chair of the Human Rights Commission or a neutral and reputable journalist, it could undoubtedly simplify the process of commissioner selection. The involvement of such individuals could enhance the transparency and credibility of the commission, fostering greater public trust in its operations.
Under the current law, the qualifications for becoming a commissioner include a requirement of at least 20 years of experience in education, administration, the judiciary, or law enforcement agencies. However, this experience should not be limited to mere numbers; it should also reflect relevant skills, knowledge, and a commitment to society. Unfortunately, the importance of education is often overlooked in the selection of commissioners. As a result, individuals who are often unsuitable in terms of education and ethics are elected as commissioners, raising questions about the effectiveness and transparency of the commission.
Moreover, if the commission genuinely wants to work effectively against corruption, some fundamental reforms are necessary in the election process. First, there should be a more in-depth and comprehensive vetting of candidates for commissioner positions so that they can be accountable to social justice alongside their institutional knowledge and experience.
Second, the policies and strategies developed for the commission’s operations must minimize the influence of political bias. Necessary measures should be taken to establish transparency and accountability in the internal workings of the commission.
Third, to enhance public participation in the commission’s activities and decision-making processes, it is essential to create platforms for accessing information and gathering public opinions. This will help restore public trust and increase support for the commission.
Finally, political will is crucial for the effective positioning of the commission and the success of its objectives. If the government ensures that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) operates as an independent and self-governing institution, it will be a significant step toward establishing a culture of corruption eradication throughout society. Consequently, the commission will be genuinely able to play an effective role against corruption and achieve success in fulfilling its responsibilities to the community.
To truly grant the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) the right to operate independently, the existing laws must be reformed, and the institution needs a complete overhaul. If the ACC cannot be freed from governmental influence, political opponents will continue to face the risk of retribution from those in power. Therefore, it is time to take effective measures to rescue the ACC from the control of the government and the bureaucracy.
Several important considerations must be taken into account to strengthen the ACC’s powers, such as the anti-money laundering laws, tax laws, and the necessity of prior approval for investigating corruption involving public officials. If these issues do not create conflicts within the law, the proper implementation of activities will be possible. If there are potential conflicts between the laws, any initiative will be ineffective, which may render the ACC powerless in its work.
The ACC, which was primarily established to combat crime, must not become a mere puppet of the government. The public has been witnessing these situations for a long time, and their awareness and interest have increased. It is particularly intriguing that the ACC has become active in combating corruption again since August 5, following the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government. However, if the institution is not reformed, doubts about the ACC’s role will persist once a political government comes to power in the future.
At the end of last month, TIB (Transparency International Bangladesh) submitted a proposal consisting of 55 points aimed at establishing democracy, good governance, and accountability. Among these, the issue of internal reform of the ACC is given priority. Since TIB played a significant role in drafting the main law, the head of the ACC Reform Commission, Dr. Iftekharuzzaman, is well aware of this matter. He understands how to effectively transform the ACC into a powerful and independent institution by turning it into a “claw and fang.”
Therefore, today’s society requires a strong and independent ACC that is free from political interference and capable of functioning effectively according to the expectations of the people. Such an initiative will not only assist in combating corruption but will also serve as a crucial step towards the overall development of the country and the establishment of public trust.
