Foot-dragging lends credence to what doubters have feared

When the four-member committee, headed by Khandaker Ibrahim Khaled was investigating the reasons for the recent stock market collapse, there was strong scepticism about its content and government's possible actions against the people who masterminded the fleecing of hundreds and thousands of small investors. Let alone actions, the developments centering the publication of the content of the four-member committee report for nearly two weeks since the submission of the same to Finance Minister AMA Muhith have given some wrong signals, providing reasons to consider that the sceptics are right. The statements issued by the finance minister on the report have not otherwise been consistent. This has lent credence to the observation of the chairman of the probe committee: 'the names mentioned in the report as suspects of the stock market scam are very powerful and influential people'. He did not have to say the rest, for the observation itself was self explanatory. The media has published the report in full. But legally speaking, the government does own the report only when it releases the same officially. After receiving the report from the members of the committee, on April 07 last, the finance minister promised to make the report public within 10 to 15 days' 'dropping' the names of individuals mentioned in the report as suspects of the stock scam. Later, according to some media reports, he hinted at making public an edited version of the report. The government, according to a are electronic media report last Monday, quoting the finance minister, would shortly make the report available to the media in its CD version, containing also some of its possible actions to remove anomalies in the stock market. The government, as all earlier indications suggested, has not been quite willing to, officially, disclose the names mentioned in the report as suspects. But that unwillingness, on the one hand, has prompted a small group of lawyers to drag the government to the higher court and encouraged, on the other, the masterminds of the scam to launch a smear campaign against the report, particularly the head of the probe committee. The plaintiff lawyers in a writ filed on Monday last sought court directive asking the government to publish the 'full' report within 'two days' and take actions against those who had played foul and resorted to manipulations in the stock market. Next day (Tuesday), the Division Bench concerned of the High Court asked the government to publish the 'enquiry report' within a 'reasonable' time. It is an issue of the legal experts to find the difference, if there is any, between what the litigants sought from the court through the writ and what the court has delivered. When the government is putting the publication of the share scam report on hold, some suspects, who were initially unnerved, have raised their heads and are making an orchestrated move to stir a controversy over the scam report and, particularly the chairman of the committee. They have come out in public to claim their innocence and accuse the committee of being biased. But their past records and the role they played, overtly and covertly, during the heydays of the stock market are fresh in the memory of investors. The smear campaign against the report and its authors is unlikely to get too many takers. However, it would have been prudent on the part of the chairman of the Probe Committee to exercise some restraint in interactions with the media, following the submission of the report to the government. The media has done its job by publishing the report in full. It has not waited and would not have waited for the government to publish the same. The media has its own way of doing things. But one might wonder whether the government has been doing the right thing by withholding the publication of the full report which have come up with some prima facie evidence of wrongdoings by some individuals and listed companies. What the government could have done better was to publish the report in full with its own observations and to spell out the actions it would want to take in the light of the findings of the report. Anybody suspected of wronging is not an 'accused' and it should be the job of the government to conduct thorough investigations into the allegations, as were noted in the report, by official agencies, including the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the National Board of Revenue (NBR) and all others concerned. In neighbouring India, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is mandated to investigate financial crimes as well as high profile general offences. It has earned the reputation of being unbiased and meticulous in its investigation. Even Indian higher courts often ask the CBI to make special investigation into both criminal and financial offences. Unfortunately, no government in Bangladesh has ever tried to build an organization in line with the CBI. Reasons could be anybody's guess. Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has itself earned the distinction and enjoys the wider respectability as far as the functional activities in its operational domain are concerned. And no cabinet minister in India is found to beyond the dotted lines under the standard rules of the game, by meddling or interfering, in any way, in the affairs of the SEBI. But things are entirely different in Bangladesh. All concerned in Bangladesh would now expect that good sense would prevail upon the decision-makers. No effort should be spared as this stage to publish the full report of the probe committee without any further foot-dragging on the issue. Other follow-up measures on the findings of the report should also be taken sooner rather than later. zahidmar10@gmail.com