Anti corruption drive: The other dimension
GOING by media reports it would appear that there is worrying dissatisfaction and apparent discomfiture in high places about the nearly stalled anti-corruption drive. Reportedly, a large number of criminal cases lodged in 2007 and 2008 would fall through on account of technical flaws that should have been taken note of at appropriate time. At higher policy making level in the government, there is a concern that many heavy weights that amassed huge wealth in questionable manner would be able to break the legal net.
For concerned citizens and conscientious taxpayers there are many queries that continue to remain unanswered. The first question would centre on the excessive preoccupation with the publicity glare of the anti-corruption drive that perhaps accounted for the failure to take note of the legal and procedural requirements while issuing notices to the defendants. The ACC alone would be responsible if persons not empowered to issue notices have done so, as alleged and thus procedurally prejudicing the cases. The specific question is, did the ACC fail to get the best available legal advice?
The aspect of receiving competent legal advice assumes special significance in view of the serious allegation that ACC has spent money worth crores as fees for a host of legal experts while investigating and prosecuting the cases. Shall one assume that there was not much application of mind and scrutiny during the selection of legal counsels for the ACC? There is no harm in paying large sums to competent lawyers because the standard fees for prosecution lawyers in the country are ludicrously low to warrant the services of worthy legal minds. The issue, however, is one of appointing proper lawyers after due diligence. The public need to know if that was done.
It would appear to a discerning eye that the much trumpeted anti-corruption drive amounted to more of an event than actually a process and consequently ground realities and built-in limitations were lost sight of. While not underplaying the public's right to be informed of the malfeasance of public figures and the special significance of media coverage of the indiscretions of the high and mighty, it needs to be emphasized that the establishment until end 2006 hardly displayed any real political will to combat the menace of corruption.
Coming to the element of above mentioned political will one may remember the slipshod manner and the dilly dallying which the first ACC resorted to in conducting its business during the political government's incumbency. It would not be an exaggeration to say that despite the goading of Asian Development Bank (ADB) the then ACC was a limping geriatric outfit that failed to find its feet till the abdication of offices by supposedly responsible persons.
Without doubts the alleged absence of political will to fight corruption in the not-too-distant past had its deleterious impact on the institutional capacity of the graft fighting body. Its much sought functional independence away from the chief executive's office, that too only on paper, came after prolonged efforts. Placing such a sensitive organization into the right gear and providing its personnel with the appropriate skills could not be accomplished in months. When the organization itself was in lackadaisical state for a painfully long time, how its personnel could be sensitized about the mission? Add to that the lack of wherewithals of an investigative body.
One would do well to remember that the ACC had to operate in a less than friendly environment wherein suspected or colluding functionaries of the government did not proactively provide the documents and information that were so vital to effectively prosecute the corrupt. It was no wonder, therefore, that the ACC had to lean heavily on the national board of revenue to locate tax irregularities of the influential that normally did not constitute a criminal offence.
In circumstances as above, one would be curious to know about the modus operandi of our taxation outfit whose alleged negligence or collusion has facilitated the unaccounted earnings of the high and mighty. The question is when vigilance is not exercised in the usual course of business by the principal revenue earning body, how reasonable is it to expect the regulatory graft fighting body to unearth corrupt practices without spontaneous support?
It needs to be remembered that enlisting cooperation from taxation officials to prove criminal cases pertaining to ill-gotten wealth is a time-consuming laborious process. Similarly, incidents of custom duty and sales tax evasion thereby depriving the public exchequer of its rightful dues are difficult to establish without a proactive approach from the customs department. It was only recently that government was able for the first time to energize the national board of revenue in tracking down ill-gotten wealth and unearned income. Such manifest action is not part of the ordinary course of business. This has to be noted while commenting on the speed of graft enquiry.
Somehow there is a belief that irregularities of all sorts may go on regardless until the malfeasance has attracted the attention of the regulatory authority including the anti-corruption commission. The situation is ludicrously akin to one in which all the erring and negligent headmasters are virtually motionless waiting for the School Inspector to pull them up. It amounts to a multiple crooks and the lone ranger scenario. No wonder, therefore, we are witnessing a huge backlog of financial, legal and administrative irregularities and deviations in all areas of national activity. Preparing a work plan and deciding on the bare reducible minimum is an extremely difficult task in such an unsettling scenario.
There is ground for concern when one finds that our supreme graft fighting body is not adequately prepared to properly investigate delicate cases of financial crime. The worrying part is that the accused will always be entitled to all the benefits of doubts and the defence will have the services of the best and expensive lawyers. Such forethoughts are definitely relevant and one can expect that the government will be generous to use its financial resources in the fight against corruption. The adversary is too strong to be taken lightly.
There is no denying that irregularities and indiscretions did not cause the raising of eyebrows in a milieu where corruption for many has become a way of life. No stigma was attached to black money in our society. Tax incentives have been given to deviants and law breakers. In addition, the corrupt have their promoters, supporters and partners everywhere in business, trade, industry, and agriculture and even in media.
We are in a mess because institutions have not been allowed to flower. The myopia of our public leaders has to take a large part of the blame. Corruption has not been condemned in a forthright manner and as such we do not see meaningful resistance to the malaise from within the society. Cultural internalization of the good and the evil has not been manifest.
The inescapable irony is that the absence of democratic activities has mostly facilitated the process of anti-corruption drive. Once political governments have taken charge the drive has slackened and has bared its teeth often when the accused happened to be the political opponent as has been the experience of 2001 to 2006. The public do not want a repetition of that without cogent grounds.
Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist of The Daily Star.
Comments