The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) will no longer require permission to investigate corruption committed by government officials and employees in good faith. However, the Advisory Council’s revised ordinance does not incorporate many important recommendations from the ACC Reform Commission.
The new ordinance of the ACC alleges discrimination in the number of members of the commission, the posting process, and the appointment of ACC officials to senior positions. The commission is currently engaging in various discussions on these issues.
On the other hand, members of the Reform Commission said that they are disappointed that several proposals made by the commission did not find a place in the final draft. They assert that the implementation of the proposals would have bolstered the commission’s transparency and independence.
ACC Deputy Director and Public Relations Officer, Md. Akhtarul Islam said: “Currently, the draft of the ACC Ordinance-2025 proposes to repeal Section 32(a). As a result, the ACC will now be able to directly conduct any inquiry, investigation and case without the prior permission of the government.”
Since the ACC (Amendment) Act of 2013, permission has had to be obtained from the department concerned to start an investigation against any government official or employee. Due to which, in most cases, the investigation and investigation activities were stopped at the beginning. One had to wait for permission for months. This no longer provides much information and evidence.
Sajeeb Wazed challenges Yunus, threatens to sue ACC chief in US court
ACC is showing a political circus by targeting Sheikh Hasina and her family
White Stone Scandal: ACC names 42 looters, new DC launches drive
The draft, which received the in-principle approval of the Advisory Council on October 30, states that Section 32(a) of the ACC Act, 2004, will be repealed. This section states that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed before filing a case against a judge or government official.
This section states that if a judge, magistrate, or government official is accused of committing an offense while performing his official duties, no court can take cognisance of the allegation without the prior approval of the government. The government will decide in which court the case will be tried.
The draft also states that despite the objections of the parliamentary committee, the then government added Section 32(a) to the ACC Act in 2013, which was โdiscriminatory.โ At the same time, the independence of the commission was also curtailed. In 2014, the High Court declared this section unconstitutional and ordered its repeal. But that order was not implemented in practice.
Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) and other social movements against corruption have been demanding the repeal of this provision since the beginning.
Anti-corruption activists have long been demanding the repeal of this provision. This provision was limiting the authority and autonomy of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACC).
Dr. Iftekharuzzaman told Bangla Tribune: โThe ACC law that required prior permission to investigate allegations against government officials and employees has been repealed. This is a good thing. Now their permission will not be needed. Unless the government discovers something new.โ
Weaponizing Accountability: Allegations of political bias in the ACC
Yunus is weaponising ACC to harass NBR officials, suppress movement
He further said: โThe disappointing aspect is that many important recommendations have been omitted from the ordinance. The ordinance failed to outline any immediate measures for bureaucratic control. The disappointment has increased even more due to the many weaknesses in the revised ordinance.โ
The draft ordinance is a slightly improved version of the existing law. It reflects some of the recommendations of the ACC Reform Commission. However, several strategically important recommendations of the Reform Commission have been downplayed, which is disappointing, the TIB chief said.
โThe reason why the ACC has become a tool for protecting the ruling party and harassing its opponents since its inception is that the government does not seem to want to change the situation. Because, despite the support of all political parties, the โSelection and Review Committeeโ, the proposal for performance evaluation every six months, and the โReform Commissionโs recommendation on increasing the number of commissioners from three to five have been ignored.โ
English