The government has turned down Khaleda Zia's family's application to allow her to be taken abroad for urgent treatment, which her lawyer and her party leaders have termed as a political vendetta. The government's reasoning, as explained by Law Minister Anisul Huq, was that the application, on which the government has suspended the jail sentence of Khaleda Zia and released her from jail on two conditions, has been disposed of and has become a "past and closed transaction." The minister also said that the decision to suspend her sentence was made under Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

This refusal to allow treatment abroad could not have come at a worse time, as the former prime minister's continuous illness has reached a critical stage, with life-threatening conditions. Besides, political distrust and division in the country over the coming election, too, have become highly charged. Against this context, it is hard to discard the notion that politics played no part in this decision from the government.

Read more

‘Govt wants Khaleda dead’

It is still unclear what rekindled the hope of her family and party that the BNP chief's treatment abroad could be possible, despite the fact that several attempts in the past have been flatly rejected by the government, citing the same law and argument which the law minister has referred to in his latest legal opinion. Reportedly, Khaleda Zia told her partymen not to agree to participating in the next parliamentary election under the current government in exchange for her medical care abroad.

It, therefore, begs this question: was the life of a politician, of such stature, really made a bargaining chip by either of the parties? The question became even more pertinent when the law minister, responding to reporters' queries on September 24, said that the government did not receive any application from her family seeking permission to take her abroad.

It followed the government's decision to extend Khaleda Zia's conditional release from prison for six more months, based on a separate application filed on September 4. As a result of the law minister's suggestive remarks that the family had not sought permission for her treatment abroad, Khaleda's younger brother Shamim Iskander made another application on September 25 seeking the required approval.

Read more

Khaleda has to return to jail first if she wants to go abroad for treatment: PM

Should we believe that the issue of seeking permission afresh was brought about simply to humiliate the political opponent by reminding them of how "powerless" they are? Questions may also arise about whether the arguments of considering the petition "disposed of" and "a past and closed transaction" are tenable.

It is often said that the law will take its own course. But examples are plenty to prove that the incident at hand was simply political rhetoric. If someone compares the fate of the 78-year-old former prime minister with that of some other politicians, such as Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal leader ASM Abdur Rab, the irony becomes evident. The JSD leader was allowed to go to then West Germany for treatment while he was serving his prison term awarded by a martial law court. Another politician, Haji Mohammad Selim – who belongs to the ruling party – was not barred from travelling to Bangkok for his treatment despite being convicted and ordered to surrender, and having had a record of fleeing the country during the tenure of the caretaker government between 2006 and 2008.

Law Minister Anisul Huq said, "Once an application is disposed of under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), there is no scope to reconsider it under the law." Many other jurists, however, do not agree with his interpretation of the law as there is nothing that bars the government or limits its authority to reconsider its decision. Every law is subject to interpretation, and there are variations in interpretations. Among these variations – except the court's interpretation – some are known as literal, and some are mischievous or intended to create mischief.

Read more

Khaleda Zia in politics: Missed chance for BNP?

Amid the contested claims by the government and by BNP, it would be better to read Section 401 of the CrPC and draw one's own conclusion. Under the title "Power to suspend or remit sentences," the law states in Section 401(1), "When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the Government may at any time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced."

Additionally, Section 401(6) says, "The Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with." As the literal meaning of the rule is far from convincing, it would be wiser for the government to reconsider its decision, which may help improve the current political environment in the country.

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His X handle is @ahmedka1

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission. 

The year was 2018. On August 30, the results of Transparency International Bangladesh's (TIB) "Corruption in Service Sectors: National Household Survey 2017" were released. According to the survey, the country's law enforcement agencies (LEAs) ranked in the highest position in terms of the experience of corruption by surveyed households. Of the households that received services from them, 72.5 percent were victims of different forms of corruption.

The Bangladesh Police Service Association (BPSA) rejected the TIB survey results in a statement issued on September 11, 2018. The statement, sent by the additional deputy commissioner of Dhaka Metropolitan Police, also the office secretary of the Police Service Association, alleged that the TIB's survey report "identified the police as a corrupt institution based on preconceived notions." It was also claimed that, "In case of any unlawful behaviour of the police, proper legal action is taken after investigation."

The story of identifying the LEAs as the "most corrupt sector" in the TIB survey and subsequent rejection by the BPSA came to my mind in the wake of the recent allegations of massive corruption against former police and Rab chief Benazir Ahmed. Documents from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) show that Benazir and his family bought at least 204.5 acres of land between 2009 and 2023. Of these, 112 acres were purchased during his tenure as inspector general of police (IGP) and Rab chief.

Read more

When the powerful prey upon the vulnerable

Was Benazir Ahmed's purchase of such a vast amount of land while he was head of police and Rab consistent with the legitimate income he was earning? Is it not an illegal act to force people to sell land by intimidation? Where was the process of "legal action" claimed by the BPSA when Benazir was engaging in such unlawful behaviour day after day as a senior officer in the police force? Why was Benazir's corruption exposed only after his retirement, and not when he was in office?

Not only was no action taken against Benazir's massive corruption and abuse of power when he was in office, he was also being given one reward after another. This is not only an internal problem of the LEAs. The entire government, including the ministry of home affairs, is also responsible here.

The Public Security Division of the home ministry honoured him with the Integrity Award 2020-21. But ACC data shows that he and his family bought nearly 87.9 acres of land in 2020 and 2021. The Integrity Award is supposed to be given to someone who meets the standards of scrupulousness and honesty. Where were those standards when Benazir was given the award? Apart from the Integrity Award, Benazir was awarded the highest medal of the police force, Bangladesh Police Medal (BPM), a total of five times between 2011 and 2019. With so many intelligence agencies in the country and so much surveillance, is it at all believable that the authorities, including the LEAs, were not aware of his illegal activities? How dysfunctional could a country's institutional system be that the person who was involved in massive corruption was rewarded time and again, instead of being punished?!

The government and law enforcement agencies claim that Benazir Ahmed's corruption is his personal responsibility, that no agency or ministry will take responsibility for him. The problem with this type of claim is that when Benazir was committing the crimes, he held important positions in the agencies concerned. Moreover, he used his administrative powers and even members of the agencies under his control for his personal benefit. For example, according to a report published in The Daily Star, during his tenure as IGP and Director General of Rab, Benazir Ahmed purchased over 600 bighas of farmland by intimidating the Hindu community in the Gopalganj Sadar Upazila, and Rajoir Upazila of Madaripur. Benazir engaged a police officer named Taimur Islam to buy the land. Taimur used to go to the land owners on Benazir's behalf and pressure them to sell the land at reduced prices, threatening them that they would lose the land anyway without getting any compensation if they did not sell that to Benazir. Benazir also engaged several police and Rab officials to supervise the construction work of one of his resorts until he went into retirement in 2022. How pathetic is it that a man whose responsibility was to protect citizens has instead used his power against vulnerable populations for his own gains?

He used his official powers not only to grab land, but even to make passports as a private employee while still in service. Government officials cannot travel abroad without prior approval. Moreover, using an official passport creates various complications in case of investing and obtaining residence permit abroad. To avoid these complications, Benazir had repeatedly renewed his passport as a private employee while still in service. At one point in 2016, as reported by Daily Jugantor, when the passport directorate objected to the renewal of Benazir's passport as a private employee while he was the director general of Rab, the directorate was forced to give the passport under pressure from the Rab headquarters.

Read more

An IGP’s eye-watering corruption takes the lid off patronage politics

Would it have been possible for a person to do these kinds of corruption and irregularities for years if he was not in important positions in LEAs and if the authorities had not promoted and awarded him? Then, on what grounds can the authorities now avoid responsibility for his misdeeds? The incident of Benazir Ahmed's irregularities, corruption and abuse of power demand special attention because it is not just a case of Benazir's irregularities as an individual, it is also a question of checks and balances of the power and accountability of Bangladesh Police and Rab as institutions.

Benazir's case clearly shows that it is possible for top police and Rab officials to abuse power for personal gains without any accountability. They can invest in land and businesses in violation of government service rules, use police force members for personal or family business, buy land at a low price by intimidating the vulnerable communities, and travel abroad with a fake identity. What is the guarantee that such blatant abuse of power and corruption are not still being practiced by some other powerful officials?

Even after media reports about Benazir's illegal wealth started to appear, there were allegations that the authorities were not proactive enough. The Kalerkantho report on Benazir Ahmed's illegal assets was published on March 31, the ACC decided to form a committee to investigate his illegal assets on April 18, and following the ACC's application, the court ordered the seizure of his assets and bank accounts on May 23. But before that, Benazir withdrew money from the bank, sold many assets, and left the country with his family on May 4. There was no action from the ACC or any department of the government to prevent Benazir from going abroad while the investigation was going on. So, what is the guarantee that his departure abroad did not happen as part of his understanding with the authorities?

This question has arisen because during the consecutive tenures of the Awami League government, Benazir Ahmed held three of the most important positions in law enforcement. He was Commissioner of DMP from October 2010 to January 2015, Director General of Rab from January 2015 to April 2020, and IGP from April 2020 to September 2022. There are questions about how much of his behaviour in these positions was that of a professional law enforcement officer, and how much was of a ruling party politician. Besides, many "crossfires" and "gunfights" occurred during his tenure as the Rab and police chief, for which the responsibility rests on him as well as the government. Investigating Benazir Ahmed's corruption is not enough. The allegations of violations of human and democratic rights against him should also be investigated, and he should be brought back to the country and punished. It is also important to uncover who were the beneficiaries of Benazir's corruption and what irregularities were legitimised through them. The most important thing is that the crisis of accountability of various institutions of the government that was exposed through the Benazir incident is also addressed.

Kallol Mustafa is an engineer and writer who focuses on power, energy, environment and development economics. He can be reached at kallol_mustafa@yahoo.com

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

Corruption increases injustice and discrimination; its impact is multidimensional. Grand corruption, meaning collusive abuse of political, governmental and business power for private gains via manipulations of public interest-related decisions, benefits a few at the expense of the whole society. Vast amounts of public money are siphoned off through high-level corruption by perpetrators, depriving the common people. When grand corruption flourishes to the extent of state capture, the institutional, legislative, regulatory and law enforcement capacity are systematically engineered to protect and promote impunity.

The cost of grand corruption in Bangladesh is high. A former finance minister was quoted to have recognised in 2015 that at least two to three percent of our GDP was annually lost to corruption. Credible data on illicit financial transfers out of the country, as reported by Global Financial Integrity, shows that through trade-related misinvoicing alone, Bangladesh lost USD 8.275 billion annually during 2008-2015. More updated data would show the amount to be much higher, no less than USD 12 billion annually. Illicit financial outflows take place in several other ways, including the conventional method of hundi. Duly validated or not, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of police recently reported that Bangladesh was losing USD 7.8 billion of remittance annually through mobile financial services (MFSs).

Read more

Stop top criminals working from abroad

Corruption generates disproportionality and inequality. Corruption affects the poor and marginalised through an unduly increased cost of, and limited or even no access to, public services. They also suffer as government resources are diverted away at the expense of investment in public sectors.

When grand corruption flourishes unabated, petty corruption involving duty bearers of service delivery also spreads deep and wide, to an extent that it becomes a way of life. For perpetrators, corruption is a matter of narcotic addiction to illicit enrichment, while for the victims – the common people – it is an extremely distressing experience in daily life that is unjust and discriminatory. This is the key message of the National Household Survey 2021 on Corruption in Service Sectors, released by Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) on August 31, 2022.

Nearly 71 percent of the respondents of the survey were victims of various forms of corruption, including bribery in 16-plus service sectors covered by the survey. Meanwhile, 72.1 percent of the victims of bribery reported that they were forced to pay bribes as they wouldn't have access to public services otherwise. There is also strong evidence according to the survey that corruption affects the marginalised sections of society more than the average victims.

The worst corruption-affected sectors, according to the experiences of respondents who had interactions in the respective service sectors, are law enforcement agencies (74.4 percent), followed by passport delivery (70.5 percent), public road transport services (68.3 percent), judicial services (56.8 percent), healthcare services (48.7 percent), local government (46.6 percent) and land (46.3 percent). In addition to bribery, corrupt practices include extortion, fraudulence, embezzlement, negligence of duties, nepotism, and harassment. The data period of the survey was December 2020 to November 2021.

It shows that the perpetrators of corruption are generally indifferent to socioeconomic or gender-based identities of service recipients, meaning that corruption adversely affects everyone. However, it impacts relatively weaker and marginalised sections of society more. The rate of victimisation of corruption among the rural households, for instance, is significantly higher (46.5 percent) than those in the urban areas (36.6 percent).

The amount of bribe collected by corrupt duty bearers from an average household is estimated to be Tk 6,640, based on which the estimated annual amount of bribery is Tk 10,830 crore, which is equivalent to 5.9 percent of the 2020-21 national budget or 0.4 percent of the GDP. The burden of bribery in terms of the proportion of average annual income is seven times higher (2.1 percent against 0.3 percent) on the lower income category of households (annual income up to Tk 24,000) compared to the higher income households (Tk 85,001 or more).

The discriminatory nature of corruption is further manifested in terms of victimisation of households headed by persons with disabilities (PWD). At least 80.3 percent of such households were victims of corruption, compared to the national average of 70.6 percent. In terms of bribery, the rate of victimisation is 51.8 percent for PWD-headed households compared to the overall 39.8 percent.

Read more

Who are these mystery shoppers and billers in public hospitals?

While there is little variation in the victimisation of corruption based on the professional identity of household heads, interestingly enough, over 51 percent of government officials are also victims of corruption. More strikingly, retired public servants are victims of corruption at a higher rate (68.3 percent) than their in-service peers, which validates that while corruption does not spare anyone, the weaker the service recipients are in terms of identity and status, the more they are vulnerable to corruption.

Corruption – grand or petty – is a major impediment to inclusive development and democratic governance. It weakens institutions, prevents rule of law, and erodes public trust in government. Corruption is protected and perpetuated by biased policy regimes and faulty governance practices that favour the rich and well-connected. Accordingly, the more pervasive corruption is, the higher income inequality and social exclusion become.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Bangladesh is placed high on the global list of the fastest growing countries in terms of the super rich, according to Wealth-X. The Global Inequality Lab reported that 44 percent of Bangladesh's total national income was held in 2021 by only 10 percent high-income people, while the bottom 50 percent possessed only 17.1 percent of GDP. Just one percent of the population owns more than 16 percent of total national income.

Promotion of integrity in public service is crucial to controlling corruption. So long as scope remains for abuse of power with impunity, relevant laws, rules and regulations remain unenforced, and institutions of accountability remain politicised and dysfunctional, corruption will only flourish. Much depends on the extent of political and governmental appetite, courage, and commitment to serve public interest and ensure accountability without fear or favour.

Dr Iftekharuzzaman is the executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB).