Ensuring the ACC's effectiveness
Saturday, 13 February 2010
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), following its reorganisation in 2004 from the its predecessor body, the erstwhile Bureau of Anti-Corruption, had invited strong criticism for being a body working far below its potential as a consequence of its being subjected to influence and control from the government. Thus, there was understandable outcry even under the last elected government for extending adequate independence to this body for running its own affairs with least interference from the government. During the tenure of the last caretaker government, an ordinance was promulgated, giving the ACC enough powers to act on its own sparing itself from any outside influence.
But under the last caretaker authorities, the ACC, rightly or wrongly, was considered to be working not judiciously for reasons of its pick-and-choose or, choose-and-pick, tactics and that too, as the perception was then, on political grounds. Moreover, the ACC had then sought to make combating corruption an event, not taking it as a process. The arrests of bigwigs by the ACC under the caretaker government in some cases were done rather unprofessionally. The arrested ones in many cases had to be let off the hook for the ACC's failure or otherwise, to substantiate the charges against them with proper evidence and proofs of their corruption. Such developments did not also reflect its proper competence or ability to subject the corruption-suspects expertly and successfully through its due processes. The ACC took up then too many cases and for a wide variety of purposes, instead of concentrating its efforts, as they ought to have, on dealing with cases involving misuse or abuse of public positions for making private gains.
In this backdrop, demands arose, following the assumption of office by the elected government in January last year, for bringing the ACC under some kind of accountability for preventing any of its excesses, willful or otherwise. A cabinet committee have now made some recommendations for amendments to the ACC Act. The ACC chairman has also voiced his opinion to the media about such amendments, stating that if the same are adopted, the ACC then would become like a body controlled by the executive branch of the government, leading to some discriminatory and imbalanced actions by it. While the ACC's track record under the caretakers do provide some grounds for the present move on the part of the government to moderate its powers in some ways within an accountable framework to make it truly caring in the discharge of its duties, the ACC Chairman's contentions are also not to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
After carrying out of whatever amendments in relation to the ACC Act, the real effectiveness of this anti-graft body in response to the huge corruption problem in the country, will remain largely dependent on its enjoying substantial operational freedom in moving against corruption-suspects, regardless of their power, influence or identities. The challenge is really to go on allowing such operational freedom to the ACC but also to ensure that this body would be obliged to exercise maximum caution in taking fair and correct steps against the corruption-suspects so that charges of any high-handedness in such matters cannot arise. Thus, one of the proposed amendments that seeks to make the ACC accountable on the whole to the President and more elaborately than under the existing procedures, should be considered sensible by all stakeholders. But another proposed amendment that would require the ACC to take permission from the government before taking steps against public officials, lawmakers, policy-makers, etc., merits reconsideration on dispassionate grounds. The latter must be consistent with both the idea and the need to leave this body with enough independence that would be too vital for it to battle corruption effectively. It is, thus, imperative to subject the ACC to some changes in its mode of operations but that should not make it a toothless tiger.
But under the last caretaker authorities, the ACC, rightly or wrongly, was considered to be working not judiciously for reasons of its pick-and-choose or, choose-and-pick, tactics and that too, as the perception was then, on political grounds. Moreover, the ACC had then sought to make combating corruption an event, not taking it as a process. The arrests of bigwigs by the ACC under the caretaker government in some cases were done rather unprofessionally. The arrested ones in many cases had to be let off the hook for the ACC's failure or otherwise, to substantiate the charges against them with proper evidence and proofs of their corruption. Such developments did not also reflect its proper competence or ability to subject the corruption-suspects expertly and successfully through its due processes. The ACC took up then too many cases and for a wide variety of purposes, instead of concentrating its efforts, as they ought to have, on dealing with cases involving misuse or abuse of public positions for making private gains.
In this backdrop, demands arose, following the assumption of office by the elected government in January last year, for bringing the ACC under some kind of accountability for preventing any of its excesses, willful or otherwise. A cabinet committee have now made some recommendations for amendments to the ACC Act. The ACC chairman has also voiced his opinion to the media about such amendments, stating that if the same are adopted, the ACC then would become like a body controlled by the executive branch of the government, leading to some discriminatory and imbalanced actions by it. While the ACC's track record under the caretakers do provide some grounds for the present move on the part of the government to moderate its powers in some ways within an accountable framework to make it truly caring in the discharge of its duties, the ACC Chairman's contentions are also not to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
After carrying out of whatever amendments in relation to the ACC Act, the real effectiveness of this anti-graft body in response to the huge corruption problem in the country, will remain largely dependent on its enjoying substantial operational freedom in moving against corruption-suspects, regardless of their power, influence or identities. The challenge is really to go on allowing such operational freedom to the ACC but also to ensure that this body would be obliged to exercise maximum caution in taking fair and correct steps against the corruption-suspects so that charges of any high-handedness in such matters cannot arise. Thus, one of the proposed amendments that seeks to make the ACC accountable on the whole to the President and more elaborately than under the existing procedures, should be considered sensible by all stakeholders. But another proposed amendment that would require the ACC to take permission from the government before taking steps against public officials, lawmakers, policy-makers, etc., merits reconsideration on dispassionate grounds. The latter must be consistent with both the idea and the need to leave this body with enough independence that would be too vital for it to battle corruption effectively. It is, thus, imperative to subject the ACC to some changes in its mode of operations but that should not make it a toothless tiger.