Let Evidence, Not Power, Guide the ACC

An anti-corruption body proves its independence when it can investigate those who once exercised state authority without political pressure. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is now facing that test, as it probes corruption and money-laundering allegations involving former advisers and people close to the interim administration led by Dr Muhammad Yunus. According to a recent report in this newspaper, the reconstituted ACC has received around 2,000 complaints against interim government officials. The allegations concern appointments, tenders, development projects, foreign assets and suspected money laundering. Given the sensitivity of these cases, the ACC must ensure that evidence, not power or public pressure, guides its work.

The scale of the allegations warrants careful scrutiny. Former Youth and Sports Adviser Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuiyan, for instance, faces allegations involving around Tk13,000 crore. These include alleged irregularities in appointments and development projects and the reported laundering of about Tk11,000 crore abroad. Complaints also name former Chief Adviser Dr Muhammad Yunus and former advisers Asif Nazrul, Syeda Rizwana Hasan and Nurjahan Begum, among others. The ACC must establish what happened and who made the relevant decisions. It must also determine whether anyone misused public resources or official positions. Most importantly, the commission should apply the same standards to everyone under investigation.

The way the ACC handles these cases will directly affect public confidence. If it gives little attention to credible allegations against former powerful officials, people may question its commitment to accountability. Conversely, pursuing cases without adequate grounds could damage its credibility. Meanwhile, if officials did misuse their power, the consequences could extend far beyond individual cases. Unfair appointments can weaken public institutions by placing unsuitable people in key positions. Irregularities in tender processes can distort competition and waste public money. Poor management of development projects can also increase costs and reduce the quality of public services. The ACC must therefore determine whether the alleged acts harmed public funds and institutional integrity.

Thus, investigators should review bank records, asset declarations, procurement documents, appointment files and relevant financial transactions. They should trace suspicious funds and identify those who may have benefited from improper transactions. Moreover, where necessary, the commission should seek help from foreign financial intelligence agencies through lawful channels. At the same time, it must protect the rights of those under scrutiny. If investigators find sufficient grounds for prosecution, the law should take its course. If they find no adequate grounds, the commission should close the cases rather than allow them to linger.

Ultimately, the ACC must show that its standards do not change with a change of government. We expect it to apply the same process to former advisers, bureaucrats, political figures and ordinary citizens. It should also communicate major developments without compromising confidentiality or due process. More importantly, independence means neither shielding the powerful nor pursuing them to satisfy public expectations. The ACC should let evidence determine the course of every investigation. Only then can it show that accountability in Bangladesh does not depend on who holds power.