Editorial
Stifling ACC role is unacceptable
We endorse its chief's concern over dilution of authority
THE present ACC has lost some of the powerful image it had acquired during the time of the preceding caretaker government despite some pitfalls. But as if to confirm that impression its incumbent chairman not long ago bemoaned that it was being a toothless tiger.
On the back of such apprehensions, comes the news of a cabinet committee's submission of 23-point proposals for amending the ACC act and the anti-graft body's objections to six of them arguing that these would seriously compromise the ACC's legitimate functions and status as a statutory body. As a matter of fact, if the suggested proposals are not dropped, the ACC's status and effectiveness as a constitutional body, by definition supposed to be appropriately empowered to combat corruption, will have been seriously jeopardised.
We are surprised how the author of the proposals could recommend that the commission would have to take permission from the government 'to begin proceedings in certain circumstances' and the list of immunity, so it seems, includes just about anybody who has been traditionally a practitioner in corruption -- public officials, policymakers, MPs, local body representatives whose offences are believed to have been "committed in good faith." First of all, it is discriminatory between corruption suspects because a whole bunch of them is excluded from the special treatment. Secondly, and more to the point is the still unreformed attitude to keep the ACC under the thumb of the executive. Pray, what difference would the ACC strike with the discredited Anti-Corruption Bureau then! The latter was structurally and operatively an appendage to the PMO, a label we would have long thought had been shed. What was wrong with the listed offences in the ACC schedule to be automatically taken cognizance of and proceeded against? Actually, while the ACC has been structurally cut-off from the PMO, in a roundabout way, the same noose is sought to be laid around its neck. This becomes clearer if one reads into the implications of the ACC being accountable to the President who, for all we know, acts on the advice of the PM except in two cases -- appointment of the prime minister and that of the chief justice.
As it is, the ACC act provides for its accountability as formulation of organogram, rules and budget of the organisation are controlled by the government. Ideally, it should be a self-governing authority subject to accountability through an annual report to the president and consequently to the parliament.
What the government should endeavour to do, for its own sake as well as that of the country which carries the stigma of corruption, like it or not, is to promote and provide for autonomy of the ACC, underpinned among other things, by a strengthening of its investigative and prosecution capacities. It is a serious matter and the stakes are high, because an independent anti-graft body is a sine qua non for good governance, quality public service, productive economy and above all, emerging as a competitive nation out to prosper.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
Related News
Shortage of nurses an urgent crisis
5 hour(s) ago
Editorial
India’s ‘push-in’ strategy violates international law
20 June 2026, 18:08 PM
Editorial
Why build roads through a reserved forest?
20 June 2026, 13:00 PM
Editorial
An alarming report on children’s exposure to climate risks
19 June 2026, 19:07 PM
Editorial
Why is safe water inaccessible for millions despite rising spending?
19 June 2026, 08:00 AM
Editorial
Comments