THE move to investigate corruption allegations against officials of the Anti-Corruption Commission especially involving external authorities is welcome. The National Security Intelligence has, as requested by the commission, started collecting information on 25 commission officials. The commission is also conducting departmental investigation against at least 3 directors, 10 deputy directors, 8 assistant directors and 5 deputy assistant directors. The move came after an internal investigation committee was set up in March to attend to allegations of widespread corruption against commission officials that they were giving undue advantages to corruption suspects and abused their powers by serving notices and extorting money. In recent months, the High Court also made remarks on commission investigations that are often found hesitant to take action against politically influential quarters. The Transparency International Bangladesh has also asked the government to ensure a judicious investigation and exemplary punishment of commission officials involved in corruption so public confidence in the commission is restored.

The commission in August issued an order that defined the submission of ‘incomplete’ investigation reports ‘intentionally’ by its officials as corruption and decided to take legal action against the officials concerned. The order has also stipulated that no investigation officer could be replaced without a logical reason when investigations are under way. These are commendable steps to make the commission transparent and accountable, but the authorities concerned should ensure that these rules are adhered to and corrupt officials are brought to justice. In 2013, a similar move was initiated to investigate the unaccounted wealth of one of its deputy directors, but the report has not been made public. Even on rare occasions, when reports are submitted, punishment comes in the form of departmental action such as transfer or removal from an investigation committee. Such disciplinary action, as many suggest, is not enough to deter fraudulent activities of the officials. The government should stop interfering in the work of the commission and allow the institutional autonomy that it is entitled to. It is rather unfortunate that many officers of the institution of accountability mandated to fight corruption are engaged in corruption to the extent that they extort money from individuals through an abuse of power.

Since its formation in 2004, the commission has largely failed to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose and sense of direction because of its inefficiency in conducting investigation, internal corruption and political interference. The investigation at hand involving external authorities initiated against the officials is the first step towards making the commission transparent, but the initiative will only be effective when the punishment would be exemplary, as it is the commission that will be meting out the punishment, and the report is made public. The political party in power that has repeatedly pledged zero tolerance against corruption must also ensure an enabling environment where the commission can exercise the institutional autonomy needed to conduct its unbiased investigation and take action against corruption.