THE third part of the BNP-led coalition government's white paper on corruption allegedly committed by the preceding AL government has been released.

Earlier on January 23 its first two parts had come out amidst some fanfare.

The disclosures of corrupt practices purportedly indulged in by the AL during its rule between 1996 and 2001 are by no means over. More white papers are on the cards as indicated by Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia's political secretary Haris Chowdhury apparently amidst a waning interest in such revelatory matters. We wonder whether the government is not biting more than it can chew.

This is, however, not to make a short shrift of the need to identify any serious omissions and commissions on the part of any government but to highlight the trading off of corruption charges between a predecessor government and a successor one without bringing the processes to any logical conclusion.

The previous edition of the white paper highlighted 40 cases of alleged graft, irregularity and abuse of power implicating 11 cabinet ministers including the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The latest litany of charges against the AL encompasses 20 instances of financial irregularities or misfeasance involving seven former ministers.

Significantly, the present white paper has been issued on the back of review or withdrawal of corruption cases that the AL government, in the second half of its tenure between 1996-2001, had instituted against the preceding BNP cabinet members. In some such cases, charges were framed and these awaited trial. It is largely by executive decision rather than any judicial opinion sought and received a priori that the corruption cases filed against BNP leaders by the erstwhile AL government have been or are being dropped. Respect for rule of law demands that we eschew a 'holier-than-thou' attitude in dealing with corruption and deal with mal-practices as mal-practices without any partisan connotation.

The problem with tit-for-tat approach to corruption is that the real culprits get away. Moreover, what is crucial here is that the anti-corruption bureau being an appendage to the PMO sees corruption through the eyes of the government of the day. We are institutionally unprepared to fight corruption from high moral and professional grounds.

If the purpose behind the release of these white papers is to bring about transparency and accountability of governance then we should have an independent anti-corruption commission to deal with the entire gamut of the business of fighting corruption. True to its pledge, the government must now form such a commission and put the matters of investigation and prosecution into the latter's hands.