A MAJOR reason that holds back the Anti-Corruption Commission from functioning independently, as stakeholders think, is the appointment of the top three officials — the chair and two commissioners — often picked up from among retired bureaucrats, close to the ruling quarters, who mostly protect partisan interests. Bureaucrats in service are also appointed on deputation to the positions of the commission’s secretary and the directors general. The commission, which is an institution of accountability, is thus mostly used as a weapon of the government to save the people close to the ruling quarters and punish the people who are in the opposition. In a set of recommendations on how to afford more power to the commission — which is the statutory, independent corruption prevention and corruption investigation agency of the state — experts and stakeholders have said that a search committee is instituted on the formation of the commission and the committee recommends six likely names for the president to pick three individuals for the top three positions. But in reality, retired civil servants are appointed to the positions in most cases. And, the government, thus, places people of its choice in the commission to maintain a comfortable control of the commission. This seriously erodes the commission’s ability to act with independence.
Experts view that the absence of any policy on the selection of the three from among the six that the committee names remains a major problem as this allows the government to appoint people of its choice to the three positions. This allows the government the space to run the commission keeping to the will and interests of the government. The process of selection should, of course, be done keeping to a pronounced policy to check against any partisan bias in the appointment of the three ranking people to the commission. But what yet remains an issue of further trouble is that people at large almost never get to know who the people that the search committee names for the selection are. This is the right of the citizens to know whom the search committee names and to see whom the government appoints. This also allows people to assess what goes around the appointment of the three. And, this could ensure transparency of a sort and place the search committee and its selection under the public lens. The issue was also manifest in the selection of names by the search committee on the formation of the Election Commission. The government on October 31 instituted a search committee which named 10 people for the chief and four other election commissioners. The commission was formed on November 21.
Whilst the search committees that the government institutes on the institutions of accountability such as the Election Commission or the Anti-Corruption Commission should be allowed to work independently, free of any influence of the government, the names that the search committees names should also be made public to place both the committee and the government under the public lens to ensure transparency in the process.
