Evidence that customary or prescribed procedures were not followed and that rules and regulations were not complied with is all that is necessary to establish a prima facie case, and credible testimonial evidence can often be more than sufficient to create a case beyond reasonable doubt.

The tried and tested method for conviction is to lean heavily on those at the lower end of the scale and cause them to flip on the bigger fish. The unhappy truth about these kinds of cases against any kind of syndicated criminality (and what else are we talking about here?) is that you often have to let the smaller fry go or offer them qualified immunity in order to create a case against the bigger fish. That's the way it goes, but it is effective and it is not hard.

So there is no reason why it should not be possible to bring solid, air-tight cases against those currently netted in the anti-corruption drive. Corruption has been so widespread and open that it would be foolish to think that evidence for it could not easily be unearthed by a halfway decent prosecutorial team.

Unfortunately, the current prosecutorial team does not appear to be meeting even this low standard. Given the fact that so many of them are hold-overs from the previous administration, it raises the question as to how diligently or seriously the prosecution is pursuing the cases. Indeed, whether the will to really crack down exists at the head of the law ministry is also a legitimate question.

Things are further complicated by the fact that the judiciary remains as compromised as it ever was and is filled from top to bottom with political appointees from the last administration. The solicitousness that has been shown to the rights of the high level detainees was never shown on behalf of ordinary people brought before them in the past five years (to say nothing of those who were extra-judicially executed without benefit of any kind of trial). So, one way or another, the corruption cases are not progressing anywhere near as well as they could be.

The new rule that has been promulgated under the Emergency Power Ordinance to bar those convicted of corruption from taking part in elections is a good move, but isolated and in the absence of other sound investigative and prosecutorial measures, it remains unclear whether the anti-corruption drive will really have the effect that the public hopes.

It seems to me that we need to take a more imaginative legal approach when it comes to deciding how to prosecute these cases. Now, I am not denying that it would be highly satisfactory to see many of those currently behind bars do hard time for the next ten-to-fifteen years for their crimes against the country, but the main thing that we would like to see as a nation is an accounting of their crimes and to be assured that they never again darken the doors of Bangladeshi politics.

In other words, the prosecution should be working on plea bargains.

One element of such a plea bargain would be a full admission of guilt as well as full and complete testimony as to one's crimes. Then there could be a court ordered restitution or disgorgement of a reasonable amount of the assets determined to be illegally accumulated. The final piece of the plea agreement would be an order barring the convicted from participating in the political process in the future.

Breaking the terms of the agreement (e.g. a move to contest the plea or uncovering that full accounting had not been proffered) would allow the prosecution to re-open the case and seek a custodial sentence.

What's in it for the accused? Well, they would be able to avoid jail-time and would most likely be able to keep a large proportion of their ill-gotten gains (which might be hard to track down anyway to the extent that they are safe in foreign bank accounts). In addition, they might be as happy as the rest of us if, upon release, they were escorted to the next plane out of the country.

On the other hand, they could contest the cases. They might win, but chances are they would lose. How legitimate the cases that would be brought against them remains to be seen, but the fact of the matter is that they would be no more suspect than dozens if not hundreds of dubious convictions handed down over the past five years.

I think of some of the more egregious cases I have written about over the past few years. For instance, of David Biswas, vice-president of Proshika, who was maliciously denied bail and mistreated horrendously in custody despite the fact that he was a sick man and that the case against him was 100% politically motivated and had not even been brought to trial.

It is amusing to note that those who routinely ensured that the rule of law was flouted to railroad political opponents and business rivals into jail for the past five years and who didn't bat an eye at the more than 900 extra-judicial killings are now at the forefront of the clamor for the rights of the current detainees.

But the fact that we potentially have a train-wreck on our hands and that the legal system needs to devise a way to legitimately and expeditiously, and, above all, fairly deal with the detainees should not be overlooked.

The popularity of the current caretaker government, such as it is, rests largely on the belief that they are going to clean things up. The current anti-corruption drive is a good idea in theory. But if the current administration makes a mistake and for some reason the nation does not get justice for the unbridled corruption of the past decade, then they will have done the people of the nation a real disservice and created an unholy mess that we may never be able to fix. So here's my unsolicited advice to the caretaker government when it comes to the corruption cases: Get it right.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.