I had been reassured that "we are going to look at it immediately" as the pending issue was immediate and could not wait beyond a week. Based on the encouraging words of the person at the ACC, I spilled my guts by sending the details by email to all of their email addresses (in case they miss one).

The sad story was, I did not got an acknowledgement to my first letter or subsequent letters to the ACC mentioning my previous letter and verbal communication that the problem at hand was immediate and would need prompt intervention.

Given this scenario, I became exposed completely whereas the commission man who spoke never divulged his name although I repeatedly asked for his identify. Perhaps, it was done as a common practice to shield the official staff of the commission from external influence, threats or attacks.

However, I felt that the commission also had the responsibility to understand and safeguard the plight of the person who was divulging sensitive matters by allowing the information provider not to disclose his/her name for which he/she could have also been subject to the brunt of the accused.

These issues are important in balancing the plight of the accused, accuser and the ACC. I understand that the name of the accuser has to be disclosed at some point to move the case forward or to ensure that vindication is not lashed at someone, but extreme caution has to be taken by the commission to keep the name of the complaining party as secret as possible.

This act of asking the personal particulars while building the case should preferably be refrained from initially as it will deter most people from lodging legitimate case for fear of reprisal. Given the current scenario of the ACC, I would like to forward some questions and would like them or members of the government to ponder on these issues and take necessary steps.

• Why do you (ACC) promote such catchy phrases when in reality you are under-staffed to handle the volume of work that comes in your direction?
• How do you plan to give security to people who share their stories when nothing happens after details of corruption are exposed?
• Why do you expect the common public to share everything with real identity when you hide behind the telephone lines of your commission?
• How can the public know that you are acting correctly when no identity is shared by your commission?
• Why don't you do a national poll and see what people think regarding the matters raised here and take necessary measures to address them?
• At what extent will the commission bring about its own transparency by disclosing the details of the cases that are being pursued?

Many of us may feel a pang of frustration, but I thought of sharing this with you and others, so that you can take these issues to the present government for clarification and rectification. I firmly believe that an independent ACC can only work if it is open 24 hours to the media and public scrutiny and posts as much information on its website as possible.

I share my effort through these thoughts so that the independent ACC can transform itself into a citadel of ultimate justice. I have no intentions to undermine the commission's noble intent, but would request them to be transparent and efficient if, at all, it wants to establish itself as the corruption-busting organ of Bangladesh that the public will come to respect.

Ziaur Rahman is CEO, IITM.