AMENDMENTS to some provisions of and the addition of some other provisions to the legislation that governs the Anti-Corruption Commission are welcome in that they promise an improvement, which may further empower the agency in its fight against corruption. The council of advisers, in principle, approved the draft of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 on October 23. The draft seeks the abolition of Section 32 (Ka) of the law, thereby doing away with the requirement for prior government permission before the prosecution or arrest of judges, magistrates and public servants for corruption offences. It proposes amendment to Section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act 2004 which would allow the commission to file cases based on specific written information received from identifiable individuals with approval from the commission’s headquarters. The amendments would also empower the commission to initiate cases if the agency receives the evidence of offences established through any judicial order, administrative communication or enquiry by public or statutory entities, eliminating the need for verification or preliminary investigation by the commission. The draft also seeks to expand the commission’s jurisdiction to include foreign nationals living in Bangladesh who are involved in corruption offences.
Whilst the amendments are aimed at strengthening the agency’s authority and operational scope, which is a good piece of news, the chief of Transparency International Bangladesh, who headed the anti-corruption reforms commission set up on October 3, 2024 that submitted its recommendations to the chief adviser to the interim government on January 15, however, says that some strategically important recommendations that the commission made have been ‘carefully’ ignored. He speaks of the recommendation for the creation of a ‘selection and review committee’ intended to ensure transparency in the selection process of the Anti-Corruption Commission and its accountability. He notes that the government has dropped the provision for the disclosure of the names of shortlisted candidates for public information and it has dropped the provision for the review of the performance of the Anti-Corruption Commission on a half-yearly basis. He also says that the provision for an increase in the number of commissioners from three to five has also been ignored. He says that the recommendations that have been ignored won the consent of almost all political parties, noting that some quarters in the government apparently have views different from what the commission recommended. He describes such a proposition as ‘disappointing’ when the interim government is eager to effect reforms in state governance to break away from the past misgovernance by way of reforms.
Whilst the amendments and additions are welcome to better equip the Anti-Corruption Commission, the recommendations left out or ‘ignored’ appear crucial for ensuring further internal accountability of the commission. The government should, therefore, have a second thought on the issues if it can for a further empowerment of the commission.
