Historically the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) of Bangladesh has faced considerable challenges in tackling corruption in Bangladesh, especially during different political regimes.
Its ability to function independently and its impact on reducing corruption has been repeatedly questioned.
The primary reason for the ACC’s ineffectiveness lies in political influence.
While established to function as an independent entity, the ACC has often been perceived as susceptible to political control.
Reports of political interference affecting its decision-making process have led to selective investigations and inaction on cases involving high-profile political figures, eroding public trust in its impartiality.
When dealing with opposition politicians or non-governmental figures, the ACC has often acted more aggressively, while appearing less resolute in cases concerning individuals within the ruling party.
Such selective enforcement undermines the ACC’s neutrality and diminishes its role as a genuine deterrent to corruption.
Institutionalised weaknesses
ACC’s legal framework contains several limitations that hinder its independence and effectiveness.
Although the ACC Act of 2004 initially granted the commission some autonomy, subsequent amendments weakened its powers.
Notably, amendments in 2013 requiring government approval for cases against government officials significantly curtailed its independence.
In 2015, the ACC was stripped of its authority to investigate money laundering cases, which had been a critical aspect of its mandate.
This power was transferred to the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit (BFIU) and other agencies like the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), weakening the ACC’s capacity to tackle major financial crimes.
As a result, its ability to probe high-profile money laundering cases involving politically exposed persons was limited, leading to widespread criticism of the move.
The ACC’s lack of prosecutorial powers and reliance on other law enforcement agencies for investigations and arrests further constrains its efforts.
Such dependency often results in incomplete or biased investigations.
Without a supportive institutional framework, the ACC’s capacity to address corruption comprehensively remains severely limited.
Capacity constraints
ACC suffers from chronic resource shortages, including insufficient manpower, inadequate funding, and a lack of advanced technology.
Such limitations hinder its ability to conduct thorough investigations, particularly in complex corruption cases involving intricate financial transactions or international dealings.
The commission’s staff often lack the requisite expertise, as training opportunities remain inadequate.
Given the complexity of modern corruption cases, which often involve sophisticated financial schemes, the absence of well-trained personnel and advanced forensic tools severely compromises the ACC’s effectiveness.
Dominance of administrative cadre on deputation
The influence of officers from the administrative cadre, who are posted to the ACC on deputation, has been widely criticised for undermining the quality of investigations.
Such officers often lack specialised knowledge in financial crime, forensic accounting, and anti-money laundering practices, which are essential for tackling complex corruption cases.
This lack of expertise can lead to flawed evidence gathering, mishandling of witnesses, and ineffective investigations.
In many cases, deputed officers hold senior positions within the ACC, creating an imbalance in the hierarchy and potentially demoralising career investigators with greater expertise.
Moreover, these deputed officers may retain connections outside the ACC, increasing the risk of political or bureaucratic influence over investigations.
Judicial system challenges
The judicial system poses additional obstacles, with corruption cases often facing significant delays that result in lengthy trials and low conviction rates.
Proving corruption in court is inherently challenging and demands robust evidence, which is frequently lacking in ACC cases.
Powerful individuals often exploit legal mechanisms to delay proceedings, undermining the ACC’s deterrent impact and diminishing public trust in its efficacy.
A poor public perception
The ACC’s perceived partiality and limited success have led to public scepticism regarding its mission.
When anti-corruption initiatives are seen as politically motivated, citizens are less inclined to cooperate with investigations or report corrupt activities.
Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index consistently ranks Bangladesh among the more corrupt countries, underscoring the ACC’s limited impact on public perception.
Reluctance of citizens and officials to report corruption due to perceived futility further hampers the ACC’s efforts, highlighting the need for a more transparent and impartial approach.
Interventions from development partners
International bodies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have pressured the ACC to reform and strengthen its anti-corruption efforts.
However, while these pressures may prompt superficial reforms, genuine and lasting change requires political will and a commitment to institutional independence.
Can hopes renew in a new era?
The interim government’s recent declaration of zero tolerance for corruption and the formation of a reform commission headed by Dr Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), offers a potential pathway for change.
Structural reforms are necessary to reduce the influence of parties on the ACC.
Recruiting specialised professionals with expertise in criminal justice, forensic accounting, and related fields, alongside continuous training, would enhance the ACC’s investigative capacity.
Creating a distinct cadre of career investigators, providing incentives for expertise retention, and establishing independent oversight mechanisms will also contribute to a more effective anti-corruption body.
With technological advancements, the ACC has opportunities to improve its transparency and efficiency by adopting digital tools.
Advanced technologies could enhance its ability to trace financial flows, identify suspicious activities, and strengthen its investigations.
What actions can be taken for a straight path?
Given the socio-political environment of the country, the ACC's effectiveness will depend on multiple factors.
A genuine political will is essential for enabling the ACC to operate independently and impartially.
Granting the ACC prosecutorial powers and removing restrictive laws will enhance its ability to act decisively.
Investing in skilled personnel, training, and modern investigative tools is crucial for tackling complex corruption cases.
Streamlining corruption trials can improve case outcomes and build public confidence.
Increasing transparency and involving civil society will enhance public trust and engagement.
Leveraging digital solutions such as big data analytics and blockchain could significantly strengthen the ACC’s investigative capabilities.
Reinstating the ACC’s authority over money laundering cases would enable a more holistic approach to financial crime investigations.
A challenging road ahead
While ACC has struggled in the past due to political influence, resource constraints, legal limitations, and public distrust, there is potential for reform.
If the government demonstrates a genuine commitment to empowering the ACC, coupled with institutional support, technological innovation, and an enabling legal framework, the ACC can improve its effectiveness in combating corruption.
Collaborating with organisations such as Transparency International, the UNODC, or Interpol can provide insights into best practices for anti-corruption investigations and offer specialised training and resources that enhance investigative effectiveness.
With reforms, ACC can build a more independent, skilled, and focused team better equipped to combat corruption and complex financial crimes.
However, any lasting change will require a shift in the political culture and an unwavering commitment to transparency and accountability at all levels of governance.
