ACC leadership faces constitutional scrutiny

The appointment of retired High Court judge Justice AKM Asaduzzaman as chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has triggered questions over its constitutional validity and implications for judicial independence, even as the newly formed commission has pledged to work independently and meet public expectations.

Legal experts and anti-corruption advocates have questioned whether the appointment is compatible with Article 99(1) of the Constitution, which restricts retired or removed judges from holding certain offices of profit in the service of the Republic.

The ACC is a statutory investigative agency rather than a judicial or quasi-judicial body. The controversy emerged as Asaduzzaman began his first working day as ACC chairman on Wednesday and said the new commission would operate without pressure.

“InshaAllah, we are not under any pressure. We will work independently. If any problem arises before us, we will try to resolve it. We have come here keeping people’s expectations in mind,” he told journalists at the ACC headquarters.

The two commissioners, Dr Jahangir Alam Khan and Dr Sazzad Hossain Bhuiyan, were present during the interaction.

The chairman urged people to pray for the commission so that it could restore the ACC’s image and make every effort to free the country from corruption.

“Please pray for us so that we can work for the country according to the expectations of the people, restore the image of the ACC and make every possible effort to make the country free from corruption. InshaAllah, we will deliver good results in the days ahead,” he said.

Asked about the new commission’s immediate activities, Asaduzzaman said: “If you hear everything on the very first day, then what will you do for the rest of the days? We will work with you for a long time.”
Legal questions over appointment

The appointment has drawn criticism from legal experts and anti-corruption campaigners, who have raised concerns about its constitutional implications and possible effects on judicial independence.

Ridwanul Hoque, a professor of Law at the University of Dhaka, criticised the appointment in a Facebook post, arguing that appointing Justice Asaduzzaman as ACC chairman conflicts with Article 99(1) of the Constitution.

The provision states that a retired or removed judge “shall not… hold any office of profit in the service of the Republic” other than a judicial or quasi-judicial office.

Hoque argued that appointing a former judge to head the ACC undermines the principle of judicial independence. He also criticised the appointment in the broader context of democratic governance, saying the government was “clearly in the path opposite to democracy”.

He acknowledged that a similar appointment had been made several years ago, but said the precedent did not remove the constitutional concerns surrounding the practice.

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman also questioned the appointment, saying it could create a constitutional conflict and raise serious concerns over the commission’s functioning.

Iftekharuzzaman said the BNP government had repeated what he described as a “bad precedent” set in 2004, when another retired judge was appointed as the first ACC chairman.

He said the appointment appeared to conflict with Article 99(1), arguing that a retired judge could not hold an office of profit in the service of the Republic unless it was judicial or quasi-judicial.
“ACC is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body,” he said.

He also pointed out that retired judges are barred from pleading or acting before any court.
“The appointment therefore creates a double-edged problem,” Iftekharuzzaman said.

“On the one hand ACC is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body, and on the other hand, as an investigative agency, an ACC headed by a chair who is a former judge will not only suffer from conflict of interest, but also, by implication, violate the Constitution on a daily basis as long as it remains headed by a former judge.”

He further said the appointment could create a moral dilemma for the retired judge, particularly over whether accepting the position was consistent with the values and integrity expected of a former Appellate Division judge.

“In the most likely scenario of the government ignoring these implications, the question that looms large is about the moral dilemma that the honourable judge would confront, particularly whether the values and integrity he is expected to uphold as a former justice of the Appellate Division is consistent with his acceptance of this position and serving as such,” he said.

New commission promises impartiality
Despite the controversy, ACC Commissioner Dr Sazzad Hossain Bhuiyan defended the new leadership, describing Asaduzzaman as a highly experienced judge.

He said decisions on matters before the commission would be taken thoroughly and impartially under the chairman’s leadership.

“I hope you will be able to learn about progress on these issues within a very short time,” he said.
The Cabinet Division appointed Asaduzzaman as ACC chairman through a gazette notification issued on 17 August under Section 6(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004.

Dr Jahangir Alam and Dr Sazzad Hossain Bhuiyan were appointed as commissioners alongside him.
Asaduzzaman will receive the salary, allowances and status equivalent to a judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, while the two commissioners will receive status and benefits equivalent to judges of the High Court Division.

The appointments were made by the president on the recommendation of a selection committee formed on 22 June.

ACC faces expectations and scrutiny
The appointments restore permanent leadership to the ACC, which had been without a permanent commission since the previous commission resigned on 3 March.

Established under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, the ACC is mandated to inquire into and investigate corruption allegations and initiate prosecution for corruption offences. It is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body, while trials and adjudication are conducted by formal judicial institutions, including Special Judge Courts.

The new commission is expected to accelerate long-running investigations and strengthen the agency’s institutional capacity.

At the same time, its independence, impartiality and effectiveness are likely to face close scrutiny as it assumes responsibility for an institution that has operated without permanent top officials for several months.

The constitutional questions surrounding the chairman’s appointment could add another layer of scrutiny to the commission’s early tenure, as it seeks to demonstrate that its stated commitment to independence can translate into effective action against corruption.