Government efforts at reform: the creation of an independent anticorruption commission The Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004 was passed by parliament in February 2004. The commission replaces the Bureau of AntiCorruption, which had failed to address the endemic corruption in Bangladesh and which was itself widely believed to be riddled with corruption. The impetus to create a new commission was the result of increasing pressure from civil society groups. From 2001 onwards, the regular appearance of Bangladesh at, or near, the bottom of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index was particularly influential in keeping corruption on the political agenda. In 2004, all the major political parties included the creation of an independent anti-corruption commission in their election manifestos. The objective of the commission is to prevent corruption and conduct investigations into corruption-related offences. Under the law, the commission is to consist of three commissioners with a chairman to be appointed from among them by the country’s president. The commissioners are to be nominated by a five-member selection panel, which will include two judges, the comptroller and auditor general, the chairman of the public service commission and the most recentlyretired cabinet secretary. Commissioners are appointed for a four-year term. The commission’s mandate includes several functions: to conduct inquiries and investigations, file and conduct cases, review the legally accepted measures for preventing corruption, promote honesty and integrity in public life and make recommendations to the president. It will also have the powers of arrest, to take testimony from those involved in allegations, to demand individuals to submit a statement of assets and liabilities, and to take possession of property in excess of known sources of income. A new court is also to be established.
104
While the decision to abolish the Bureau of Anti-Corruption and establish a new agency is welcome, the new law has serious shortcomings that call into question the potential effectiveness of the commission. First and foremost, the commission’s autonomy appears seriously limited. Aside from the obvious weakness that the head of the commission is appointed by the president, the commission will also be dependent on the government for decisions about its organisational structure and, notably, its budget. The absence of civil society representation on the selection committee further jeopardises the neutrality of commissioners. There are no civil society oversight mechanisms and no provisions in the law for civil society to play a role in raising public awareness and preventing corruption. Several amendments to the current law would strengthen the commission. The power of arrest should be made more specific; left as it is, such power is open to abuse. In addition, it is crucial that the commission be provided with adequate resources and personnel as soon as it is established. In order to avoid the fate of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption, the commission must achieve quick results to gain public respect. The credibility of the institution could be enhanced by introducing an asset-declaration requirement for the commissioners. Bringing about institutional change in Bangladesh is no simple task; it will inevitably meet strong resistance. In the case of the new anti-corruption commission, it is the international donor agencies that have taken the most interest, though domestic civil society groups have done their best to back up demands for more public accountability.
Speeding up justice The call for judicial reform in Bangladesh revolves around two themes, the abuse of judicial office for political ends and the chronic inefficiency of the judiciary leading to a poor quality of justice and the presence
Country reports
GC2005 02 chap06 104
13/1/05 4:33:57 pm