Fine-tuning the investigation process
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Mahmudul Haque
CHARGES started by the government against the nabobs of corruption of the past regimes, were generally welcomed by people. The more appreciated action has been taking most of the charged ones under custody. The ones against whom the due application of the law has started, had earlier created an impression as if they were above the law. People had started thinking from a sense of hopelessness that the charged individuals were so powerful and influential that they would never have to face arrests, courts and trials for their crimes. Thus, the interim government deserves commendation for shattering this notion of their invincibility. People were no doubt made happy by this gesture that law can be unsparing and apply equally to all regardless of positions, wealth and status.
But as the investigation and trial processes move forward, new worries are being created. The spectacles of the ill gotten riches of the charged persons have been too apparent. Yet, it has to be proved beyond doubt with appropriate evidences that their wealth was indeed derived from corruption, misuse of power and other illegal activities. This is the indispensability in the legal process and till these requirements are fulfilled, the conviction and regular punishment of the considered guilty ones cannot commence. And here possibly lies a greater challenge for the government. And here, it has to be confirmed beforehand that funds involved in related transactions are corruption-ridden. The country's socio-economic circumstances have to be taken into consideration in this connection. One may point out here the cases of property sales and purchases, if related transfers particularly involve inherited property. Most such land transfers are registered at prices far below the actual receipts, creating the scope for holding and disposal of related undisclosed money. The concerned authorities will require to take note of such deals and must not consider the same as being corruption-ridden.
Detaining people on apparently highly credible suspicion of corruption and other ills is a far easier task than proving the charges against them in court. Doing of this depends very crucially on the investigation process. If the investigators themselves are incapable or incompetent, or are ignorant of socio-economic realities, and if they are susceptible to compromise behind the wings with their targets or are influenced by other factors, then the investigation process is bound to be either flawed or weak. Thus, it needs very good monitoring from the highest levels of the government if any of the above malaises are plaguing the present investigation process specially against the crazes of corruption, If any slips are detected, the same should be taken care of promptly.
The efficiency of the investigation process is dictated by previous precedents. For example, a strongman who ruled Bangladesh for nearly a decade and was accused overwhelmingly both within and outside the country for amassing huge wealth through corruption and sending the same abroad for resting in safe havens, could be hardly charge-sheeted on the basis of these accusations. He was officially charged for petty unlawful acts and that made it possible for him to come out of jail relatively easily and make statements against his jailers for tormenting him needlessly.
The former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was similarly charged by the government of President Mosharraf, for massive corruption and the accusations were generally supported by her countrymen at that time. But it goes to the discredit of both the Mosharraf government and the legal system of that country that Benazir's alleged corruption could not be proved. So, the way is now open for this once very discredited politician of Pakistan to return to her country without the fear of facing corruption charges and to even make a bid for reinstatement in power.
The same sort of developments may benefit the presently accused bigwigs of corruption in Bangladesh and the government must learn from the above examples. If the government does not make very strong efforts from now on to fine-tune the investigation machinery on which everything depends, then the accused persons would stand a good chance of walking out of jail as free persons -- fairly soon-- to dabble afresh in mischief at the cost of the political and economic stability of the country. In that event, the justification of the coming to power of the present government and all of its good initiatives, would become questionable. It is also vitally important for the government to concentrate its focus on big financial crime involving corruption on the basis of strong and solid proofs, and not to fritter energies on persons or matters involving petty or negligible irregularities and having little connection with corruption. For curbing such irregularities, it is better to revamp the system that has induced the same.
Meanwhile, for the sake of its own credibility as well as for meeting comprehensively the ends of justice, the government should waste no time in absolutely ensuring that the investigation apparatus remains very focused, very motivated, very scrupulous and very uncompromising in its activities. Specially, the investigators also should be subjected to short training to improve their skills for investigating specially financial crimes, involving corruption, and money transfer abroad. The services of specialists can be also engaged for the purpose. The motivation of the investigators can be significantly improved by allowing a certain percentage of the recovered wealth from the corrupt ones to be awarded to them for their successful investigation activities.
CHARGES started by the government against the nabobs of corruption of the past regimes, were generally welcomed by people. The more appreciated action has been taking most of the charged ones under custody. The ones against whom the due application of the law has started, had earlier created an impression as if they were above the law. People had started thinking from a sense of hopelessness that the charged individuals were so powerful and influential that they would never have to face arrests, courts and trials for their crimes. Thus, the interim government deserves commendation for shattering this notion of their invincibility. People were no doubt made happy by this gesture that law can be unsparing and apply equally to all regardless of positions, wealth and status.
But as the investigation and trial processes move forward, new worries are being created. The spectacles of the ill gotten riches of the charged persons have been too apparent. Yet, it has to be proved beyond doubt with appropriate evidences that their wealth was indeed derived from corruption, misuse of power and other illegal activities. This is the indispensability in the legal process and till these requirements are fulfilled, the conviction and regular punishment of the considered guilty ones cannot commence. And here possibly lies a greater challenge for the government. And here, it has to be confirmed beforehand that funds involved in related transactions are corruption-ridden. The country's socio-economic circumstances have to be taken into consideration in this connection. One may point out here the cases of property sales and purchases, if related transfers particularly involve inherited property. Most such land transfers are registered at prices far below the actual receipts, creating the scope for holding and disposal of related undisclosed money. The concerned authorities will require to take note of such deals and must not consider the same as being corruption-ridden.
Detaining people on apparently highly credible suspicion of corruption and other ills is a far easier task than proving the charges against them in court. Doing of this depends very crucially on the investigation process. If the investigators themselves are incapable or incompetent, or are ignorant of socio-economic realities, and if they are susceptible to compromise behind the wings with their targets or are influenced by other factors, then the investigation process is bound to be either flawed or weak. Thus, it needs very good monitoring from the highest levels of the government if any of the above malaises are plaguing the present investigation process specially against the crazes of corruption, If any slips are detected, the same should be taken care of promptly.
The efficiency of the investigation process is dictated by previous precedents. For example, a strongman who ruled Bangladesh for nearly a decade and was accused overwhelmingly both within and outside the country for amassing huge wealth through corruption and sending the same abroad for resting in safe havens, could be hardly charge-sheeted on the basis of these accusations. He was officially charged for petty unlawful acts and that made it possible for him to come out of jail relatively easily and make statements against his jailers for tormenting him needlessly.
The former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was similarly charged by the government of President Mosharraf, for massive corruption and the accusations were generally supported by her countrymen at that time. But it goes to the discredit of both the Mosharraf government and the legal system of that country that Benazir's alleged corruption could not be proved. So, the way is now open for this once very discredited politician of Pakistan to return to her country without the fear of facing corruption charges and to even make a bid for reinstatement in power.
The same sort of developments may benefit the presently accused bigwigs of corruption in Bangladesh and the government must learn from the above examples. If the government does not make very strong efforts from now on to fine-tune the investigation machinery on which everything depends, then the accused persons would stand a good chance of walking out of jail as free persons -- fairly soon-- to dabble afresh in mischief at the cost of the political and economic stability of the country. In that event, the justification of the coming to power of the present government and all of its good initiatives, would become questionable. It is also vitally important for the government to concentrate its focus on big financial crime involving corruption on the basis of strong and solid proofs, and not to fritter energies on persons or matters involving petty or negligible irregularities and having little connection with corruption. For curbing such irregularities, it is better to revamp the system that has induced the same.
Meanwhile, for the sake of its own credibility as well as for meeting comprehensively the ends of justice, the government should waste no time in absolutely ensuring that the investigation apparatus remains very focused, very motivated, very scrupulous and very uncompromising in its activities. Specially, the investigators also should be subjected to short training to improve their skills for investigating specially financial crimes, involving corruption, and money transfer abroad. The services of specialists can be also engaged for the purpose. The motivation of the investigators can be significantly improved by allowing a certain percentage of the recovered wealth from the corrupt ones to be awarded to them for their successful investigation activities.