Iftekharuzzaman

Let me first clarify one point. I was not fully satisfied with the ACC Ordinance enacted during the interim government's tenure. It did not fully reflect the recommendations of our reform commission. The ordinance had a number of shortcomings and required further improvement. Nevertheless, it represented an important step forward and could have served as the foundation for more meaningful reforms in the future.

What has disappointed me most, however, is what happened afterward. First, following the resignation of the ACC commissioners, the commission was left effectively leaderless for more than four months. In my view, this was a deliberate decision by the government. There may well have been legitimate criticisms of the commissioners who resigned. I am not suggesting they were ideal commissioners. But if there are concerns about an institution's leadership, the appropriate response is to replace the leadership, not to render the entire institution ineffective. I would compare it to cutting off one's head to cure a headache.

Second, the government has yet to convert the ACC Ordinance into law. This is despite the fact that BNP explicitly pledged such reforms in both its 31-point reform agenda and its election manifesto. The government has said that various ordinances will be reviewed and improved. If that is genuinely the intention, why was that process not initiated for the ACC from the outset? Why, after all this time, is there still no clear position? The message this sends is far from encouraging. It suggests that the government's commitment to building an effective and independent anti-corruption regime is, in reality, quite limited.

Based on what I have observed, I do not believe the government wants an Anti-Corruption Commission that is genuinely independent, effective, and capable of restoring the public's lost confidence. The government's broader conduct reinforces that impression. Since 5 August 2024, there have been widespread allegations across the country of land grabbing, extortion, and various other irregularities. Members of the ruling party, its allies, and leaders and activists of other political parties have all been implicated in these allegations. Yet the current government's response has not appeared particularly firm.

A similar pattern has emerged with regard to the National Human Rights Commission. The same is true not only for the ACC and the Human Rights Commission but also for the ordinances concerning the Supreme Court Secretariat and the appointment of judges. The fundamental purpose of these ordinances was to make the state more accountable to its citizens.

I do not believe the government genuinely wants a system in which the executive branch is subject to effective accountability. I have serious doubts about its commitment to establishing accountable governance. And if that is indeed the reality, then it must be said that the government has moved considerably away from the spirit of reform that emerged in the aftermath of the July movement.