Lack of actionable evidence biggest barrier to prosecuting influentials
In a views-exchange meeting on September 28, you had said that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) "cannot bring influential people to book for graft as they retain documents while holding posts." Is this a systemic or procedural problem, or is it because of some other reasons? Doesn't the ACC have any mechanism to get access to those files?
We do have a mechanism, but the problem is that you need to know where the corruption is happening first. When we know about a complaint then we have a process to intervene. When someone in power is involved in corruption, we do not know that he is involved as we do not receive any information or evidence to suggest that that is the case. Without evidence, we cannot just go after him arbitrarily. Usually, it is only when they leave their posts that we receive any allegation against them. If we do find something specific after having received a complaint, then we go after him and try to ensure that we get access to the necessary files and also start the process of investigation.
What about the allegation that cases filed against influential people are themselves selective and are often withdrawn or not filed based on partisanship?
I must disagree with this notion. Our decisions and actions are not based on partisanship. We are an independent body and discharge our duties as per rules and laws and our own conscience. Regarding influential people, there are times when we simply do not receive any complaint against them. Can you as a free press publish all the reports that you get? You are not an island unto yourself, neither are we; we're a part of the system. We have to deal with the same constraints that you do. I should remind you of the idea of "self-censorship." Just like you, we cannot do many things whether we like it or not. At times, there are rumours about certain powerful individuals being involved in corrupt practices. But we are constrained by the legal system which needs credible evidence. Only perception would not work before the court of law. We have to prove their involvement in court, so the evidence that we present must be credible.
What progress has the ACC made in regard to some of the more high-profile cases of corruption such as the ones involving financial scams in the BASIC Bank and Bangladesh Bank?
We have filed 54 cases in regard to the issues involving the Basic Bank. Banks are allowed to extend loans, so we cannot interfere in this. Our concerns centre on loans that are based on fraudulent documents and fake properties. There are more cases involving the BASIC Bank that are in the pipeline. As far as the Bangladesh Bank's case is concerned, it is out of our jurisdiction. If the Central Investigation Department (CID) finds BB officials being involved, only then can we take action. We are yet to hear from the CID, BB, or the government. If we receive any information, we will surely look into it. That said, we are keeping a close eye on the CID investigation and the moves of the BB.
What has been the biggest drawback when it comes to investigating and prosecuting influential people for corruption?
The biggest drawback would be the lack of credible information and evidence, although that does not apply to all cases. It is also not true that we have not prosecuted any influential individuals. Many of them—I do not want to name any—are facing trial, or are already under investigation or in jail.
In its Half-Yearly Report-2016, Transparency International, Bangladesh, reported that some 67.8 percent households were victims of corruption while 58.1 percent said that they had to pay bribe. Don't these figures indicate that corruption in our country is extremely high?
Of course, I agree that corruption is very high, but I do not know the methodology that they used to come up with the figures that you are referring to. However, we are trying to find that out. At times they go with what their perception is. But I would like to point out that many of the sufferers are those who are poor. Those giving bribes are relatively poor people. It is the people in rural areas that are often the worst hit by corruption. The ACC is trying to focus its attention on helping these people. The big fish usually do not pay bribes, rather they loot public resources under what are win-win situations for them. While I have to admit that corruption is high, I must also say that it is currently decreasing, albeit slowly; the decreasing trend should be positively looked at. This is also supported by a recent TIB Corruption Perception Index report about Bangladesh.
What is your opinion about how the public currently view the ACC and are you satisfied with it? What can be done to instil greater confidence in the public's mind when it comes to the ACC and its role?
I believe that the public still does not have full confidence or trust in the ACC. But people do have high expectations from it and the current ACC administration is trying to live up to that, although that is not an easy task. The question is how well we can respond to their hopes and expectations! I would not say that I am happy with what the ACC has achieved so far. But we are looking forward to doing better and to gaining people's trust through our deeds. And I must confess that I am quite happy that people expect so much from us! That only makes us want to do better. Therefore, I am optimistic as I look forward to implementing our strategic plan. I must emphasise again that we need your (the media's) help and that of the public on such a difficult journey. We also need the support of the government, political parties and all the other stakeholders. We need a consensus to successfully fight against corruption. We often speak of having a "so called zero-tolerance policy" against corruption, yet we often fail to come to a consensus which helps no one. The ACC will only survive if it can gain and hold onto public trust. That alone can be our safeguard. Our allegiance always lies with the people, not with anyone else. That is why, we must have the public on our side before anyone else. That will only be possible once we have their trust.
Comments