Anti-Corruption Commission vs Parliamentary Committee May 4, 2009Posted by bdoza in BANGLADESH, GOVERNANCE, JUDICIARY.
Tags: ACC, Anti-corruption commission, Parliamentary Committee
An intriguing debate is going on in Bangladesh as Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings summoned past and present acting chairmen and members of the Anti-Corruption Commission(ACC) to come for hearing to the PC to clarify the deeds and accounts of ACC during the period of caretaker government.
None of the members of the ACC agreedto acccept the summon on the plea that PC has no authority on the ACC and ACC is in no way accountable to PC, it is only accountable to the President and they have submitted the Annual Report to the president already.
The chairman and members of the PC argued that Parliament is the supreme authority and everybody/ every department is accountable to the parliament. They also threated the members of ACC that not to appear before the Committee will be tentamount to the comptempt of the Parliament and which may end in jail or fine of the members.
It is not clear whether the said Parlimentary Committee has the authority over Election Commission or Supreme Court to vaify their activites and accounts as these departments are also thrive on the public money.
The experts are divided. Though the ACC is not a constitutional body by rules but it is such by spirit. In no way ACC should be accountable to a committee that is chaired by a ‘convict’. He may has own grievances to call the ACC which had drawn the proccedings for which he was found guily by the High Count and he is now under special bail and staying out of the jail. It is alleged that he may has done this out of malafide intention.
We want the ACC to be strong enough to combat the corruption in our country, to be independent to challenge and charge anybody, not to be accountable to person/s who proved guilty by the court and the members should have a dignified and honourable life.
Most of all , we want to see the ACC to be a constitutional body.
Will the controversy be referred to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision?
An ordinry citizen