The previous interim government, led by Prof Muhammad Yunus, brought baseless allegations of money laundering against eleven individuals and institutions without any evidence, solely to serve its own interests. Without any form of investigation, their bank accounts were frozen, the properties of many were seized, and travel bans were imposed. Harassing individuals in this manner without proper evidence directly violates fundamental constitutional rights. However, former chief adviser Prof Yunus and law former adviser Asif Nazrul compelled the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to carry out these actions.
Under the guise of these alleged money laundering charges, assets worth over Tk57,000 crore belonging to various private-sector entrepreneurs were seized. Upon taking office as governor of Bangladesh Bank, Ahsan H Mansur effectively strangled the private sector. He attempted to tarnish the sector’s overall image by spreading various allegations of money laundering. Staging what appeared to be a drama of recovering laundered money, he travelled abroad using crores of taka from taxpayers’ funds. Yet, in a year and a half, the Yunus government failed to recover even a single taka of laundered money. Instead, it devastated the economy by adopting various anti-investment measures indiscriminately against private-sector entrepreneurs.
Senior figures within the interim government ordered that maximum priority be given to money laundering investigations, but in reality, these actions served to damage the country’s economy. Following this directive, a joint investigation team comprising the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the police, the National Board of Revenue (NBR), and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) launched an aggressive investigation. The Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit (BFIU) acted as the coordinating body. Investigation documents were prepared within a specially secured room at Bangladesh Bank.
However, after more than a year of this investigative exercise, no specific allegations of money laundering were found against five of the eleven institutions, even during the preliminary investigation. The joint investigation team decided to continue investigating six institutions while suspending investigations into the remaining five for the time being.
Yet, despite being cleared of the allegations, the frozen accounts of these institutions and individuals have not been reopened. Their travel bans have not been lifted either. Who will compensate them for suffering punishment without committing any crime?
It is not only these five industrial families; the bank accounts of more than three hundred businessmen and industrialists were frozen due to the unjust decisions of the Yunus government. The ACC investigated them, and according to relevant sources, ninety per cent of these frozen accounts were found to be clean. The ACC has merely left these investigations unresolved. These individuals, who fell victim to harassment despite committing no crime, are still awaiting justice. Their bank accounts remain frozen.
This is because there is currently no functioning Commission at the Anti-Corruption Commission. In order to be cleared of these allegations, approval from the ACC is required, but there is no one authorised to grant that approval. The ACC is inactive, but the harassment continues.
It has been nearly three months since the Anti-Corruption Commission became effectively leaderless. On 3 March, ACC Chairman Mohammad Abdul Momen and two ACC Commissioners, Md Miah Muhammad Ali Akbar Azizi and Brig Gen (retd) Hafiz Ahsan Farid, resigned. Since then, the ACC has operated without leadership. According to Section 17 of the ACC Act, all anti-corruption activities of the institution must be conducted through the Commission. From initiating an inquiry into an allegation to approving a case charge sheet or final report, the Commission’s approval is mandatory at every stage. However, with the positions of the ACC Chairman and other members remaining vacant for three months, the Anti-Corruption Commission has effectively become inactive. As a result, while innocent people continue to face endless harassment on one hand, the government’s anti-corruption drive has stalled on the other.
According to ACC sources, a significant portion of the ACC’s inquiry and investigation activities is currently stalled due to the lack of approval. Critical decisions, such as filing new cases, approving charge sheets, and even imposing travel bans on suspects, cannot be made. Consequently, in many instances, timely legal action cannot be taken against the accused.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), described the situation as unprecedented, stating that it raises serious questions about the government’s stance against corruption.
According to the ACC Act, if a commissioner’s post becomes vacant, there is a legal obligation to fill it within 30 days. However, even after two months, the government has shown no visible initiative to reconstitute the Commission, leading to widespread disappointment among stakeholders. They argue that the vacancy has created a vacuum within the institution because the ACC Act and its regulations provide no alternative mechanism for decision-making in the absence of the Commission. Officials remain occupied with existing inquiries and investigations, but since there are no guidelines on how to resolve them, they are unable to reach final decisions. Dr Iftekharuzzaman said, “Since its inception in 2004, there have been concerns and a crisis of public trust regarding the independence and effectiveness of the ACC. A commissionless state and uncertainty of such prolonged duration have never occurred before.
“This is disappointing, though not entirely surprising. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident in our country when it comes to the unaccountable exercise of power by those in positions of responsibility. Ignoring legal obligations and public expectations, the interim government failed for months to form the Information Commission and the Human Rights Commission. However, the current government was elected by the people on the basis of a strong commitment to fighting corruption and ensuring the independence and effectiveness of all watchdog institutions, including the ACC.”
He added, “It is well known that without the Commission, the ACC cannot perform any of its core mandate functions beyond routine administrative work. While investigations or cases approved prior to the resignations may continue, they are suffering from stagnation and inefficiency due to the leaderless state of the institution. In reality, this situation has created an environment conducive to corruption. At the same time, the government’s failure to fulfil its legal obligation to form a new Commission is deeply embarrassing.”
In light of the ACC reform report issued by the previous interim government, the Ministry of Law published a gazette notification on 23 December to further amend the ACC Act 2004. After the new government assumed office on 17 February, the parliamentary session began on 12 March. On that very day, 133 ordinances, including the ACC-related ordinance, were placed before Parliament.
Of those 133 ordinances, 113 were passed and seven were rejected. No decision was made regarding the remaining 13 ordinances. According to the law, after 30 days had elapsed from the date they were placed before parliament – from 12 March to 11 April – those 13 ordinances automatically lost their validity. Since 11 April, the ACC Act 2004 has therefore been fully restored.
Legal experts state that the current government made the correct decision in refusing to accept the ordinances introduced by the interim government. This is because the ordinance contradicted the core spirit of the Constitution. It granted sweeping and arbitrary powers, including the seizure of assets without investigation or trial. Punishing someone without a trial is not only unlawful but fundamentally unjust. Yet, the Yunus government did exactly that for a year and a half through the enforcement of that ordinance.
According to the currently active ACC Act 2004, the five-member search committee will consist of a justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, a justice of the High Court Division, the comptroller and auditor general, the outgoing secretary of the Cabinet Division, and the chairman of the Public Service Commission. However, this search committee has yet to be formed.
Responsible government sources state that a search committee may be constituted very soon.
Bd-pratidin English/ ANI
