Published: 01:24 AM, 30 August 2026
How Long Will ACC Remain A Weapon for Fostering Corruption?
From Left: Dr. Debapriya Bhattacharya, Dr. Hossain Zillur Rahman, Anu Muhammad, Barrister Sara Hossain. -AA
An institution created to fight corruption should inspire confidence, not fear. Yet in Bangladesh, growing allegations about the misuse of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) have raised an uncomfortable question: can an agency entrusted with protecting public resources itself become a source of harassment for ordinary citizens, honest entrepreneurs and political opponents?
The ACC has an important public role. Genuine corruption must be investigated, and those who abuse public office for personal gain should face the law. But the fight against corruption loses its legitimacy when allegations are used indiscriminately, investigations become instruments of intimidation, or legal proceedings are initiated without adequate evidence. Newly appointed ACC Commissioner Sazzad Hossain Bhuiyan acknowledged a couple of days ago that randomly issued letters from ACC cause panic to the letter recipients who might be totally innocent.
Critics and alleged victims have claimed that unscrupulous ACC employees have used anonymous complaints and blanket accusations to intimidate hundreds of people from different walks of life, including business owners, media entrepreneurs, journalists, teachers, educationists, artists, actors and actresses. In some cases, individuals who had never previously faced corruption allegations were reportedly confronted with anonymous letters or notices demanding explanations over sweeping and sometimes unspecified accusations.
The most disturbing allegation is that such intimidation was sometimes intended to create pressure for illegal financial settlements. According to people who claim to have experienced the practice, the mere prospect of an ACC investigation could damage a person's reputation, disrupt business operations and create enormous psychological and financial pressure—even before any allegation was tested in court.
Such allegations require serious and independent investigation. An anti-corruption agency cannot be allowed to become a mechanism through which citizens are frightened into submission. Nor should a person's reputation be destroyed merely because an anonymous complaint has been filed against them.
The problem becomes even more serious when political considerations enter the picture. Bangladesh has a long history of allegations that law-enforcement and judicial institutions have been used against political opponents. Human rights observers have also voiced concern over arbitrary arrests, politically motivated prosecutions and the manipulation of legal proceedings.
The political transition following August 2024 made this principle particularly important. Numerous criminal cases were reportedly filed against people in the aftermath of the political upheaval. In some cases, large numbers of unidentified individuals were named as accused. Many people were arrested and detained, while questions remained over the evidence against them and the progress of their prosecution.
The prolonged detention of people whose trials or prosecutions have effectively stalled is especially troubling. The presumption of innocence is not a privilege reserved for the powerful; it is a fundamental principle of justice. A citizen should not be considered guilty simply because an investigative agency, police officer or political actor has accused them.
The filing of sweeping cases can also create a climate of collective punishment. When dozens or even hundreds of people are named in a case without clear individual allegations, ordinary citizens can find themselves trapped in lengthy legal battles. Some may remain in prison while waiting for hearings, bail or
further investigative steps. For families, the consequences can be devastating.
For journalists and media entrepreneurs, the consequences can be particularly severe. A corruption allegation can become a form of censorship when it is accompanied by interrogation, threats of prosecution, searches or prolonged uncertainty. The same applies to teachers, academics, artists and businesspeople. A democratic society cannot expect independent professionals to work freely if an accusation—however weak—can suddenly expose them to years of legal uncertainty.
The alleged practice of sending anonymous letters containing blanket allegations to prominent and ordinary citizens is therefore deeply concerning. If such letters are being used without proper verification, they can become instruments of harassment rather than tools of accountability. Innocent people may be forced to spend substantial sums on lawyers, suspend business activities and live under constant fear of arrest or investigation.
The solution is not to weaken the ACC. Bangladesh needs a stronger, genuinely independent and professionally accountable anti-corruption institution. But independence must mean independence from political influence as well as protection from outside interference. ACC employees themselves must be subject to effective oversight, transparent procedures and meaningful penalties for abuse of authority.
Every complaint should be screened for credibility. Anonymous allegations should not automatically become the basis for coercive action. Investigators should have to establish reasonable grounds before launching intrusive inquiries, and citizens should have accessible mechanisms for challenging malicious or demonstrably false accusations.
Most importantly, corruption investigations must be separated from political vendettas. Whether the accused is a government official, opposition politician, business owner, journalist, academic or ordinary citizen, the standard should be identical: evidence, due process and an impartial hearing.
Bangladesh cannot build a culture of accountability by replacing one form of institutional intimidation with another. The purpose of the ACC should be to expose corruption—not manufacture fear. If the commission is to regain public confidence, it must demonstrate that its authority is exercised for the public interest rather than for political retaliation, personal enrichment or institutional intimidation.
An anti-corruption campaign succeeds only when citizens believe that the law protects them as much as it investigates them. Anything less risks turning an essential guardian of public integrity into another source of public anxiety.
Former caretaker government’s adviser Dr. Hussain Zillur Rahman said that until and unless ruling parties stop manipulating the operation of the Anti-Corruption Commission, chances are remote to eliminate corruption and irregularities in Bangladesh.
Professor Anu Muhammad, Jahangirnagar University said that it has been observed for many years that the top officials of ACC are often selected under political consideration. For this reason ACC functionaries cannot rise above nepotism and partisanship, Anu Muhammad commented.
Barrister Sarah Hossain said that corruption and socioeconomic justice cannot go ahead hand in hand. Corruption remains an insurmountable barrier for the establishment of good governance, equal rights and rule of law, Sarah Hossain commented.
Dr. Debapriya Bhattacharya, Distinguished Fellow of Center for Policy Dialogue (CPD) stated that dire vices like mob violence are taking place almost everywhere including courtrooms and police stations. Corruption, anomalies and political interference have been all along heavy obstructions for making accountability and integrity prevail in banks and financial institutions, he remarked.
