THE growing backlog of corruption cases that the Anti-Corruption Commission handles reflects a system in distress. With 8,330 cases pending with courts, the problem is no longer simply administrative. It is now institutional. What is also concerning is a steady decline in the disposal rate, which has declined from around 10 per cent to little more than 7 per cent in recent years. This downtrend signals not only inefficiency but also a waning capacity to deliver justice in time. Delays are attributed to a range of factors, including the frequent non-appearance of witnesses, procedural stalling by defendants through writ petitions and undue influence exercised by the accused who are powerful. More than 300 cases dating back two decades, alongside hundreds stalled by stay orders, illustrates how deeply entrenched the crisis has become. Although special courts exist to deal with corruption, judges are often burdened with multiple responsibilities and tend to prioritise cases that are easier to dispose of quickly such as those under the Negotiable Instruments Act or narcotics laws. The practice, driven partly by poor performance of the commission, leaves complex corruption cases languishing.
All this results in justice not only being delayed but increasingly denied, eroding public trust and undermining anti-corruption efforts. The commission’s struggles also appear to be rooted in structural and political shortcomings. Experts have repeatedly pointed out that the absence of dedicated courts solely for corruption cases slows down proceedings. The High Court’s directive requiring monthly progress reports on corruption cases has largely gone unheeded, exposing a lack of oversight and enforcement. Also troubling is the allegation that the appointment of prosecutors is influenced by political considerations rather than merit. Such practices compromise the integrity of the legal process as lawyers may prioritise political interests over the commission’s mandate. The situation is exacerbated by the influence exerted by many of the accused, who often possess significant political, economic or social power. Their ability to manipulate legal proceedings contributes significantly to delays and weakens the prospects of fair resolution. All this is compounded by the commission’s current leadership vacuum. For about a month, the commission has been without the chair and commissioners, effectively paralysing its decision-making capacity. This absence of leadership not only halts ongoing work but also highlights a glaring legal gap as laws do not clearly define how the institution should function in such circumstances.
The government must, therefore, address the crisis with the urgency it demands. Restoring leadership to the commission is an immediate priority, but it must be done with a commitment to appoint individuals of proven integrity, competence and independence. Structural reforms are imperative, too. Establishing exclusive courts for corruption cases, ensuring merit-based recruitment of prosecutors and enforcing accountability measures are essential steps to improve efficiency.
