Advisers’ asset disclosures and a test for the new government

The interim government’s (IG) disclosure of the assets of advisers on February 10, just days before the scheduled end of its tenure, was not only delayed by 533 days after its commitment to do so, but was also incomplete, flawed, and unfit for purpose. It represents a high-level breach of public trust and is merely the tip of the iceberg of the departing government’s failures to set credible examples of transparent and accountable governance. Over the past months, numerous such failures have been reported and commented on through columns like this, whether in the exercise of authority or in initiatives taken as an interim administration tasked with laying the foundations for state reform, including ordinance-making.

Disappointing as these developments are, this façade of IG asset disclosure at least leaves behind a clear message for the incoming BNP government that prepares to take office on Tuesday. The message is on how it can do this better. Unlike the IG, it may begin by proactively making such disclosures timely, easily verifiable, and complete to ensure the full transparency and accountability of power-holders, including public representatives and government servants at all levels.

We may recall that the head of the interim government, in his first address to the nation on August 25, 2024, made quite a few important commitments to set examples of transparent and accountable governance. He spoke in his capacity as the person entrusted with overseeing the reform drive, one of the core tasks assigned by the July movement. Among these commitments was the public disclosure of wealth and income by the advisory council. It also came with the promise of making such disclosures regular and mandatory for all public servants.

Later, a gazette was issued on September 22, 2024, making the submission of wealth statements by government servants mandatory and prescribing a format for the purpose. On October 1 that year, the government also issued a “policy on disclosure of income and asset statements of advisers of the interim government and persons of equivalent rank.” No one knows why the advisers’ disclosures were parked for so long, nor whether any submissions by government servants actually took place; no disclosures, of course, have been made public.

The disclosure commitment had raised high expectations, and for good reason. It reflected a recognition of one of the most effective global best practices that Bangladesh has long failed to adopt, a failure that not only contributed to deepened and widened public-sector corruption with implications for the entire state and society but also enabled about 16 years of authoritarian kleptocracy that was eventually defeated at a high cost in lives, bloodshed, human rights violations, and injustice. It is therefore obvious that this pledge was among the many aspirations for state reform that eventually formed the basis of the July Charter.

But the IG took almost 18 months to prepare and upload a set of asset descriptions that it may claim fulfilled its pledge. It may be argued that the disclosure per se was a notable exception, as no previous government had done this before. However, the real question is whether the interim government can truly be credited for having walked the talk.

First, the disclosure was delayed without any explanation. There is no way to justify why it took so long—unless, perhaps, the government did not realise at the time of making the pledge that it had been entrusted with state power to demonstrate that promises are meant to be kept. Or perhaps it didn’t realise how hard the internal resistance would be. This may explain why, as demands for compliance from civil society and the media grew, the disclosure was eventually uploaded as a parting eyewash. It is no coincidence that this approach is consistent with the IG’s broader governance record: secrecy to deny, or at best minimise the scope of, accountability.

There are several reasons why the IG disclosure amounts to little more than eyewash. Asset declarations by publicly exposed persons—including public representatives, government leaders, and public servants—should, as per global good practice, allow for assessment of consistency between legitimate income and assets acquired. They should also allow for robust scrutiny and checks against any concealment. What has been disclosed instead consists merely of aggregated financial and non-financial assets, with no granularity or comparability to assess the level of transparency and accountability. The base and closing periods of the information (June 2024-June 2025) do not serve the purpose of meaningful disclosure or comparative analysis, which is the primary objective of such practices worldwide, including in some of Bangladesh’s regional neighbours.

There are no statistics on income and expenditure, no disclosure of sources thereof—including salary and business interests—or major heads of expenditure for the period. The information is not accompanied by relevant documentation such as bank statements, property titles, or tax returns. The principal purpose of such disclosures is not only to ensure accountability for inconsistency or non-disclosure, but also to prevent corruption, including illicit enrichment through abuse of power and conflicts of interest. It is therefore highly unlikely that the information disclosed by the IG would withstand critical scrutiny for accuracy, completeness, comparability, or truthfulness. In this connection, one can also question the lack of disclosures by those appointed as special assistants to the chief adviser, or contractual recruits in key positions, at least those who drew government salaries.

So the key message for the new government here is that it has an opportunity, and obligation, to demonstrate a stronger commitment to practising what it preaches. This will require consistency of delivery with regard to public expectations of accountable governance as reflected in BNP’s 31-point Outline of Structural Reforms, its election manifesto, and the July Charter approved through the referendum. Notably, as per the charter, all political parties consented—without any note of dissent—to the commitment that “all public representatives at all levels will submit to the Election Commission statements of income and wealth of self and family within three months of taking office and renew them annually, which shall be published on the EC website ”.

The IG undermined the mandate for transparent and accountable governance derived from the uprising, at least as far as asset disclosure is concerned. It now remains to be seen whether the new government refrains from similarly ignoring the sacred authority it derived from the overwhelming popular mandate of the election thanks to the pledge to ensure corruption-free, transparent, and accountable governance.

Dr Iftekharuzzaman is executive director at Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB). 

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.