THIS is shocking that two former commissioners of the Anti-Corruption Commission have come up at the centre of corruption. The commission approved a case against eight individuals over allegations that they abused their authority in allocating duplex flats under the Grihayan Dhanmondi project. The officials responsible for the project approved and merged flats to create two oversized duplex blocks of flats, each nearly double the size of standard units, in breach of policy prohibitions. The flats were allocated to the two former commissioners at meetings of the National Housing Authority while several other senior officials, including the NHA chair and some board members, are also accused of complicity. The controversy was further highlighted by a May 2025 television report claiming that the prime government land and flats, constructed by the order of the then prime minister Sheikh Hasina, were given to bureaucrats allegedly involved in the contentious 2018 national elections. After preliminary investigations, the housing ministry cancelled the allotment in July 2025.
Beyond the immediate absurdity of senior anti-corruption officials flouting the rules they are meant to uphold lies a pattern of institutional fragility. Over recent years, the commission’s effectiveness in stemming corruption has significantly weakened. Its conviction rate has steadily declined, with fewer than a half of accused being convicted in recent years and cases remaining unresolved, raising questions about the investigative capacity and prosecutorial rigour. Transparency International Bangladesh and other governance observers have repeatedly criticised the commission for being susceptible to political and bureaucratic influence, unable to act independently and sitting idly when allegations involve powerful individuals. The erosion of autonomy has been compounded by internal dysfunction. Disciplinary action and dismissals of the personnel over bribery and misconduct underscore how inequity and corruption have not been confined to the sectors it monitors but have seeped into its own ranks. Critics also point to a broad pattern in governance culture where anti-corruption measures have been deployed selectively, at times perceived not as genuine engines of accountability but as instruments shaped by political expediency. In this context, the duplex flat corruption is not isolated and, rather, symptomatic of the commission’s chronic institutional weaknesses. The commission lacks the systemic safeguards needed to confront entrenched patronage and elite impunity without being overwhelmed by them. Strengthened internal oversight, transparent asset verification and procedural safeguards are, thus, essential, even as the commission undertakes its investigation.
This case should, therefore, be handled with utmost seriousness. Given the unprecedented breach of public trust, expeditious and exemplary punishment are essential to hold the people responsible to account and to restore public trust in the commission. Transparent proceedings, strict adherence to legal standards and the full disclosure of assets should leave no room for doubt.
