Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has questioned the government’s seriousness about state reform after the final Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Ordinance was approved without incorporating the proposed “Selection and Review Committee”. According to TIB, this exclusion undermines the possibility of transforming the ACC into a truly independent, accountable and politically neutral institution.
In its Friday statement, TIB said that the ACC has gained notoriety over the years as an instrument frequently used by ruling authorities to settle political scores rather than combat systemic corruption. The strategic recommendation to form a Selection and Review Committee, it argues, was central to freeing the ACC from political influence. Removing this provision, TIB warned, not only compromises institutional reforms but signals the dominance of anti-reform factions within the government.
The organisation highlighted that every political party which signed the July Charter had agreed to the recommendation, and relevant authorities within the government had endorsed it earlier. Yet the proposal was excluded from the final ordinance—an act TIB interprets as evidence of the government’s reluctance to translate reform pledges into reality. The organisation described this decision as “self-contradictory”, particularly for an administration responsible for steering state reforms.
TIB also criticised the Chief Adviser, who leads the Consensus Commission and approved the formation of 11 reform commissions, questioning whether exempting the ACC from accountability was intended to convey that reform initiatives are only symbolic.
Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman stressed that the ACC, since its inception, has struggled to earn public trust. Political manipulation, inconsistent investigations and selective enforcement have, in TIB’s assessment, reduced it to a tool for protecting the powerful while persecuting opponents. International best practice and domestic political realities, he said, clearly justified the need for an independent committee to oversee appointments and performance.
He further revealed, citing reliable sources, that at least seven advisers opposed the recommendation, despite knowing it had unanimous political backing. He warned that bypassing the July Charter risks encouraging political actors to disregard it entirely, undermining the sacrifices made for achieving it.
Although TIB acknowledged improvements in the draft legislation it had reviewed, it expressed concern that several other crucial, consensus-driven recommendations had also been removed from the final version. TIB argues that such decisions reveal the strong influence of vested interests within the state machinery—groups that benefit from limited oversight and who resist any reform that might curb their authority or expose corruption.