Strategically Speaking
We don't want a let off commission
WE understand that the "truth commission" (albeit under a new name -- it is good that the government has thought it fit to abandon the idea of naming it truth commission) is all but ready to be delivered to the people, whose aim it will be -- from as much as we can glean from whatever is available to the public so far (very little is made known to the public and, apparently, there is no intention on the part of the caretaker government to elicit public opinion on such an important issue either) about its substance -- to deliver the incarcerated businessmen, which will, in turn, hopefully, deliver the country from the clutches of the business syndicate.
A feature of the commission is that its dispensation will not be exclusive to the businessmen but will also include the politicians, particularly those that are behind bars on charges of corruption. This is an after thought, too, to accord an egalitarian character to the commission.
Noteworthy is the fact that the government is looking for another name to replace the much talked about "truth commission" -- a name accorded to an authority that was formed in several other countries with a more pious idea than to let off the hook, according to the perceptions of many, those alleged to have committed grave offences.
It is a sad reflection of our society and politics that most of those that have been taken into custody following the imposition of emergency, on corruption charges, are either businessmen or politicians. That does not in any way sully either of the professions. Not all businessmen or every politician can or should be painted with a broad brush.
However, in Bangladesh, many businessmen have taken to politics, and vice versa -- with predicable but unfortunate results. But the only calling to have suffered in Bangladesh had been politics. On the other hand, some businesses and businessmen-turned politicians have prospered.
It has become amply clear that business syndicates are strong enough to cause more than nuisance for the government if they want to, and the very ham-fisted handling of some of the issues in the economic and commerce sectors has led to the market flux that has been exploited by certain sections of the less than conscientious business community. The consequence, many feel, has been the unbridled rise of prices of daily necessities. But if anyone feels that providing special dispensation alone to the businessmen now in custody will help stem the price rise should consider other options also.
The finger of guilt should not be pointed at any particular group collectively. The prima facie evidence against any person must be thoroughly investigated, and evidence so gained must be used to prove the case in the court of law. It doesn't speak well of either the anti-corruption drive or the legal system when alleged offenders are kept behind bars indefinitely without bringing any charges against them.
This saps public confidence in the system. And when some of those involved are the "luminaries" of the business world the impact is not only natural it is also inevitable.
The causes of excess liquidity in the banks and poor rate of investment in capital goods are, therefore, not far to seek. This makes the vicious cycle of poverty even more vicious. However, by the same token, transgression of the law and contorting the system, either for political or economic benefits, cannot be allowed to go unpunished. But no one is guilty unless proven so, and that is why the sooner we can separate the alleged corrupt from the real ones the better will it be for us.
And this takes us to the operating mechanism of the new commission waiting to be christened. Some of its provisions, as reported in the media, deserve more than cursory attention.
Reportedly, the new commission will bring those among the 222 alleged corrupt in the list, that have not yet been charge-sheeted, under its ambit. They will be given the option of owning up to their crimes and paying a fine, whose volume will presumably depend on the volume of corruption indulged in. But what will make it a "bad law" is that it will not be retrospectively applicable.
Merely by confessing to their crimes and paying a fine the alleged persons can avoid a prison sentence and seek "rehabilitation." But those who have already been convicted on charges of corruption after the declaration of emergency will not get the "benefit" of the new provision. In other words, it means different dispensation for similar offfence.
Owning up to a culpable offence and paying fines as a punishment cannot be an adequate expiation for the crime. But if the state feels that it is necessary for the greater good of the country, it must be applicable to all equally. Otherwise, this will go against the grain of natural justice as being discriminatory, and against the relevant article of the country's Constitution. Should this arrangement be implemented it must also allow those that have been awarded jail-sentence already on charges of corruption the advantage of the new provision.
One also fails to comprehend the word "rehabilitate" when the "confessing" offenders stand to have some of their rights curtailed by the commission, which they will be empowered to under the suggested provision of the proposed commission.
But it should also be kept in mind that being on the so-called list does not automatically prove one's culpability. And this has been clarified, though belatedly, by one of the advisors very recently. Thus, why should anyone on the list, or charged with corruption, volunteer a confession even if they are guilty, when they have quite a good chance to absolve themselves of the charges through the exploitation of the many loopholes in our legal system? Further- more, what will be the mechanism to ascertain or verify the statement regarding the amount profited through corruption?
And this brings us to the question of the anti-corruption drive in the country, particularly prosecution of the corrupt. The drive against corruption is multidimensional. The ACC's anti-corruption drive can see success if individual and institutional corruption can be stymied by identifying the corrupt, bringing them to justice, and ensuring that the trial results in conviction. For this, incontrovertible evidence will have to be gathered. The priority should be on putting on trial the alleged corrupt, prove the cases against them, and leave the court to award appropriate punishment. And the less time taken for the procedure to be completed the more will public trust on the ACC be reinforced. But again, while justice delayed can cause denial of justice, justice hurried often leads to justice buried.
While one can understand the government's compulsion in forming a commission such as this as a corrective measure of actions gone awry, it should not lead to even more complications. But more importantly, the new arrangement should not be seen as a let-off mechanism for those that should really be behind bars -- for there are a few that no amount of confessions or fines can atone for their crimes.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments