Improving operations of ACC

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has failed to live up to the expectation of the people of a country that only switched its position, albeit invariably at the bottom rung of the CPI (corruption perception index) table among the countries in the world. That has been its state of affairs over the last one decade or so, reflecting how corruption eats into its vitals. Notwithstanding the brave face that the ACC honchos do occasionally put on to counter criticisms, they are aware of this stark reality. The common people have a feeling that the ACC is not taking into cognizance the graft-related developments at high places or deliberately allowing the big fish to escape the net. At the same time, its reaction to the findings of various studies and surveys, undertaken by international and national organisations on graft-related issues, also sounds bizarre.
Even the Commission has not been successful to any marked extent, in dealing with the petty and small-to-medium-scale graft cases for a variety of reasons, including the inefficient handling of such matters and weak investigation. The incumbent chairman of the Commission has admitted the poor performance on the part of the ACC's panel lawyers, numbering more than 260 who have been handling graft cases both at lower and higher courts. He also did not hide his frustration over the performance of the ACC panel of prosecutors against the high-profile lawyers who are usually engaged by the graft suspects.
The ACC chief's frustration is justified. However, the Commission can blame none but itself for appointing incompetent lawyers who are incapable of delivering results. If the selection of lawyers were made under pressure from some other places and without checking their professional competence and track record, the Commission can hardly expect good results from such lawyers. Beside the issue of competence, there are some more important factors. The financial integrity is one issue that deserves priority attention. The graft suspects tend to part with a small fraction of their ill-gotten wealth to buy off witnesses, prosecutors and investigators to weaken the cases against them. There is no guarantee that the ACC's graft suspects are averse to playing such a game.
The success rate, according to the ACC chairman, in graft cases that have been instituted by the Commission, is around 47 per cent. Such a low success rate does hint at the presence of flaws of a serious nature at the stages of both investigation and legal actions that are carried out by the ACC personnel. The people in general did not approve of the way the Commission had handled a few high-profile cases of graft and bank loan scams in the recent past. Now the ACC top brass is reportedly planning to bring about changes in its panel of lawyers. It is a well-intended move. But the same would only be successful if the changes are made with the objective of selecting competent, honest and efficient lawyers to handle its cases. If the ACC means business, it will also have to make identical changes in its investigation process.
The high hope raised by the constitution of the ACC in the early 2000 was largely dashed at the very first instance when politics played a part in the selection of Commission members. Since then, the developments surrounding the ACC have failed to raise any fresh hope about the functioning of this institution as an effective anti-corruption watchdog. So, the ACC, in addition to improving its operational strength and quality of both investigation and prosecution processes, will have to present a brighter image to the people by taking actions against the corrupt elements, no matter how powerful they are.