& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Dubious Deposition for Clemency

Tac accused of not following ordinance

Emran Hossain
The Truth and Accountability Commission (Tac) awarded clemency to graft-suspects without entertaining some provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure Ordinance, 2008 that empowered it to reject dubious disclosures.
"I had the opportunity to reject clemency petitions but I preferred accepting confessions of the graft-suspects. We believed their confessions since findings of the Anti-Corruption Commission were not final and needed to be proved in the court," said Justice Habibur Rahman Khan, chairman of now-defunct Tac.
He also admitted inadequacy in the commission's ordinance and is likely to recommend in the final report that the government give the next commission, if ever formed, the authority ofinvestigation.
"The ordinance had the provision for cancellation but I was not bound to maintain that. I also had the option to decide whether I will entertain the provision or not," the chairman added. He also blames lack of time for not being able to do the work properly.
In section 27 of the Voluntary Disclosure Ordinance, 2008 the commission is entrusted
SEE PAGE 15 COL 1
FROM PAGE 1
with the authority to reject clemency petitions if any doubt surfaces.
On the other hand, section 25 makes it clear that if the commission considers verifying an individual's statement, it can carry out necessary verification.
"It does not seem the commission followed its ordinance properly. Before grantingclemency, the commission must be convinced. It was not that Tac was bound to pass order, it could have refused the applicant or kept the matter pending." said Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) Executive Director Dr Iftekhar Zaman. "But the commission has granted clemency instead."he added.
According to section 39 (E) of the ordinance, providing false or confusing information is a punishable act and an individual can be fined Tk 1 lakh or jailed for hot more than six monthsor both for that.
Interestingly, despite wide discrepancies between findings of the ACC probe into assets of graft-suspects and the confessional statements made for clemency. Tac did not ask for ACC's views for verification, say sources involved in the anti-graft drive.
Out of around 500 graftsuspects seeking clemency, Tac awarded clemency to 452 and sent back only about 10 cases.
Of those listed by ACC as corruption suspects, 270 sought exemption from prosecution in return for voluntary disclosure and surrender of their ill-gotten wealth. Only one of their statements to Tac tallies with findings of the ACC investigation. The rest vary widely from the probe outcomes.
“In accordance with the truth commission ordinance we had sent necessary documents with every case we
forwarded following application from the graft-suspects. And it has become clear how much importance the commission gave to the information," said ACC Director General (Admin) Col Hanif Iqbal.
"The Truth Commission was supposed to take the information into due cognisance. There is hardly anything to say when they had decided everything hearing fromoneside," he added.
In the end of Tae's activities, intellectuals and civil society members observed the commission fell flat, as it could not justify its activities legally.
They also observed the government should immediately decide about taking action against the commission for what they said was its negligence in maintaining the ordinance properly while awarding clemency.
"The government, especially the law ministry, should think about what action can be taken against the truth commission. It has caused harm to the government by awarding clemency to many graft-suspects, who surrendered wealth way less than what they were found to have amassed illegally." said Prof Muzaffer Ahmad, convener of Shujan, a civil society initiative to promote good governance.
"As it was not possible for the truth commission to investigate and had time constraints and inadequacy in the law, it could have referred the cases back to the anticorruption watchdog for further investigation," said Prof Serajul Islam Choudhury.
"All rules and laws are guided by values. As establishing truth was the main target behind establishing the commission, it should not have passed any decision in cases truth faces any crisis." Zaman observed.