Incumbent chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) M Badiuzzaman has found the watchdog very much understaffed, in terms of its ability to perform the role of an anti-graft authority of a country having a population of 160 million.
Speaking at a function organised in celebration of the 11th anniversary of the ACC in Dhaka Sunday last, he said with manpower strength of 1037, including 300 involved in investigation, it is not possible to check corruption in such a populous country.
Neighbouring India has a population of 1.27 billion, eight times larger than that of Bangladesh. Its Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is considered a very effective entity in combating major financial as well as other criminal activities, has strength of nearly 4000 personnel. The CBI has a vast network all over India.
Recently, the manpower issue involving the CBI came up for discussion. When the Indian Supreme Court expressed its displeasure at the delay in the investigation in some chit-fund scams in Paschim Bango, the CBI solicitor told the court that the Bureau had severe shortage of manpower.
There should be a "CBI investigation against CBI" for its constant refrain about severe manpower deficit, a two-member bench said in response.
But the fact remains that the credibility of CBI, a pure governmental agency, in combating corruption in India is quite high. It is one of the most dreaded investigation agencies in that country because of integrity and honesty of its officials. The shortage of manpower might have affected its efficiency level, to some extent. Since it is true to its objectives, the problem has not emerged as a barrier to its unending fight against major financial crimes.
Not many people, possibly, would contest the fact that the ACC has not been able to earn the confidence of the people as an anti-graft watchdog. It is viewed as, in the words of its immediate past chairman, a 'toothless or paper tiger'.
The popular perception is that the ACC would never investigate the allegations of graft against high-profile people. They may not be wrong. At least, the ACC has recently proved so through the non-inclusion of the immediate past chairman of the BASIC Bank, a state-owned bank, in the worst-ever loan scam in the country's banking industry.
The ACC's decision to drop the name of the past chairman of the bank has surprised all concerned. Even a section of ruling party lawmakers have expressed their deep anguish in the House over the ACC's handling of the BASIC Bank issue.
The law that establishes the ACC says in its preamble that the Commission shall be an independent entity. But till now it has not done anything worth believing that it is really independent and aggressive against corruption.
The process of constituting the Commission, it seems, is not perfect. According to the ACC Act, 2004, a selection committee, comprising two judges nominated by the Chief Justice, Comptroller and Auditor General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the immediate past cabinet secretary to the government, nominates Commission members and sends their names to the President of the Republic for appointment. The President appoints a chairman from amongst the members nominated by the selection committee.
The structure of the selection committee is different from that of a committee made responsible for appointing the members of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), a near counterpart anti-graft body of ACC in neighbouring India.
The three-member committee that appoints Chief Vigilance Commissioner and two Vigilance Commissioners include the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and a Supreme Court judge recommended by the Chief Justice of India. The same formula applies in the case of selecting the director for CBI.
The CVC enjoys vast power and authority and has a built-in system to get feedback from chief vigilance officers (CVOs) in government agencies and other public sector enterprises and take necessary measures against errant officials. The CVC does also enjoy superintendence authority over some major branches of the CBI.
There is no denying that widespread graft is a serious problem for India. But the fact remains there are serious efforts and effective institutions to combat it. The institutions concerned, in most cases, are being allowed there to work freely and in a transparent manner.
The government is a powerful entity. If it desires to make the important national institution truly effective, it can do so. It can also do otherwise, no matter what laws, rules and regulations say. The wishes of the government prevail, ultimately.
   zahidmar10@gmail.com  Â
Â