The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has failed to establish a permanent prosecution unit despite a legal provision introduced 22 years ago, undermining its ability to prosecute corruption cases effectively and hold influential individuals accountable, according to a former senior official of the commission.
In an exclusive interview with The New Nation, former ACC Director General (Legal) Maidul Islam said the absence of a dedicated prosecution team, political interference in appointments and a shortage of specialised legal professionals have weakened the commission’s efforts to combat corruption.
“ACC cases are not like ordinary criminal cases. They require specialised expertise in financial transactions, document analysis, abuse of power and tracing the movement of suspicious money,” he said.
Established in 2004 to investigate and combat corruption, the ACC has repeatedly faced allegations of political influence, selective investigations and institutional weaknesses under successive governments.
Maidul Islam said the commission’s effectiveness would remain limited unless it developed an independent and professionally accountable prosecution system. Section 33 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004, provides for the establishment of a permanent prosecution unit.
However, the provision has remained unimplemented, leaving the commission dependent on panel lawyers appointed on a temporary basis.
According to Maidul Islam, most of these lawyers also handle political and other criminal cases, making it difficult for them to devote sufficient time and attention to corruption prosecutions.
He said the arrangement also raises concerns about accountability, conflicts of interest and the ability of prosecutors to build expertise in complex financial crimes.
Although the ACC undertakes lengthy investigations, gathers evidence and files cases, weaknesses in prosecution often prevent these efforts from producing successful outcomes in court.
Explaining the reasons behind the continued absence of a permanent prosecution unit, Maidul Islam pointed to frequent changes in the commission’s leadership following political transitions.
He said that although the law provides commissioners with a five-year tenure, changes in government have sometimes resulted in commissioners leaving office before completing their terms.
In some instances, he alleged, commissioners have been pressured to resign following changes in political leadership.
Such interference, he said, also affects the appointment of prosecution lawyers, with individuals enjoying political connections often receiving preference over candidates with the necessary qualifications and professional experience.
“They have no real accountability to the ACC; their allegiance lies with the government. As a result, they cannot work independently and professionally,” he said.
He argued that politically influenced appointments sometimes allow inexperienced lawyers to handle highly technical corruption cases, weakening the commission’s position during trials.
Moreover, because prosecutors are appointed temporarily, the ACC cannot develop a stable pool of legal professionals with extensive experience in prosecuting corruption.
Maidul Islam said inadequate understanding of anti-corruption laws and relevant legal provisions among some prosecutors can weaken cases and contribute to lighter sentences for convicted offenders.
“This is why the law provided for a permanent prosecution unit. If the ACC had its own prosecution unit, it could exercise direct control over the team, which would deal exclusively with ACC cases,” he said.
He also warned that the existing arrangement could create opportunities for accused individuals to influence prosecution lawyers, potentially compromising the integrity of judicial proceedings.
As a result, he said, substantial investigative efforts do not always translate into convictions, with nearly half of the accused reportedly being acquitted in corruption cases.
Beyond weaknesses in prosecution, the former ACC official identified prolonged judicial proceedings and an overwhelming backlog as major obstacles to combating corruption.
He said around 8,000 ACC cases are currently pending before courts across Bangladesh, while the average case disposal rate in courts in Dhaka has fallen to just 7.27 per cent.
According to him, judges are often occupied with other criminal and civil matters, leaving insufficient time to prioritise corruption cases.
The situation is particularly challenging in the higher judiciary, where the High Court remains heavily engaged in hearing rules, bail applications and other matters.
Corruption cases consequently receive limited hearing time, while proceedings at the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court can remain unresolved for years, he said.
Maidul Islam also highlighted the shortage of manpower at the ACC, saying the commission lacks sufficient personnel to handle its existing caseload efficiently.
He noted that the legal framework prescribes specific deadlines for investigations and trials, including 120 days for completing investigations and 60 days for concluding trials.
However, these statutory timelines are frequently missed, with some cases continuing for years or even decades.
The delays not only weaken the effectiveness of anti-corruption enforcement but also undermine public confidence in the commission’s ability to ensure accountability, he observed.
Legal experts believe that establishing a permanent prosecution unit, strengthening professional independence and ensuring timely disposal of cases are essential to improving the ACC’s performance.
They argue that corruption cases require specialised legal knowledge, sustained institutional attention and effective coordination between investigators and prosecutors.
Without these reforms, prolonged investigations and court proceedings will continue to frustrate efforts to bring corruption offenders to justice.
Maidul Islam stressed that a dedicated prosecution unit would allow the ACC to maintain greater supervision over its lawyers, develop specialised expertise and ensure stronger accountability throughout the judicial process.
Legal experts also emphasised the importance of enforcing statutory deadlines to reduce the backlog and prevent corruption cases from remaining unresolved indefinitely.
They said timely investigations and trials, combined with an independent prosecution mechanism, could strengthen deterrence against corruption and restore public confidence in the country’s principal anti-graft institution.