ACC's judicious move
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has made it mandatory for an investigation officer (IO) to take statement of the accused in question and attach the same with the inquiry report to the commission. Under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 and Anti-Corruption Rules, 2007 the operative word was 'may' for an IO to take statement from an accused. The reason why it is now being made mandatory is far too obvious to have been missed so far: whatever the allegations against an accused, his right to defend himself is to be provided for at the very initial stage of the legal process that is marked by investigation. In some cases reportedly, ACC issued notices against graft suspects without conducting inquiry. That such things will now be matter of the past is a proof of the ACC's open-minded flexibility to be correct in its action.
In maintaining the principle of transparency that the law upholds, ACC director general (administration) Col Hanif Iqbal has spoken of some more positive approach being taken by ACC. 'If the court acquits a suspect of the charges brought against him, the ACC would take into consideration bringing correction in its work in light of the verdict,' said he. He has also conveyed the decision of the commission to the effect that from now on people under inquiry and investigation would be informed if the allegation against them were not proved and that it was unnecessary for the commission to go ahead with inquiry or investigation.
The ACC shoulders onerous responsibilities of carrying forward the anti-corruption drive through a legal process for the court to deliver its verdict in cases involving high profile accused persons. It has come a long way under the leadership of Lt Gen (Retd) Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury forwarding a number of anti-corruption cases to the court and now handling a larger number of them awaiting indictment from his office. It is of the essence that the ACC is foolproof in its work so far as prosecution is concerned and thereby fulfils the public expectation of winning convictions against the guilty.
We welcome the new decisions of the ACC.
Comments