The former Railway Minister of Bangladesh, Mr. Suranjit Sengupta, has claimed that he was proven “clean and innocent in the investigation” of an alleged act of corruption. The driver of the former minister’s assistant personal secretary, exposed the corruption accused against Sengupta when the driver instead of driving his car to the minister’s house took it to the Head Quarters of the Border Guards Bangladesh and showed the officers there that the car he is in charge of is with 7.4 million Bangladesh Taka.
The driver also informed the officers those two senior railway officers and the Assistant Personal Secretary to the minister, who had collected the money as bribes from prospective recruits to the railway, for and on behalf of Sengupta, were in the car. Later these officers admitted before the media that they were on their way to the minister’s residence, when the driver committed the “breach of trust” and landed all of them into trouble.
Given Bangladesh and the way the country works, Sengupta continues to be a cabinet minister in the country, without a portfolio. Now he has threatened to sue the media for broadcasting the interview of Mr. Ali Azam Khan, the car driver, who was the whistleblower in the entire affair. The minister made this remark on 10 October in a press briefing at the Parliament Media Centre in Dhaka. Sengupta is a senior of member of the Bangladesh Awami League, the leading party in the ruling alliance.
That the persons involved in the crime are some of the most powerful and influential in the country, of which one is a senior member of the ruling party, did not loose their ill-gotten money though. The Border Guards counted the money during the early hours of 10 April and confirmed that it amounts to 7.4 Taka. Then they reportedly handed over the money back to the minister’s staff and without registering a case with the police, let them all leave. Understandably the officers continued in their job, but the poor driver had to go hiding to save his life.
After the exposure, Sengupta formed a probe committee headed by none other than his personal secretary to inquire the scam. Indeed, Sengupta denied his involvement but remitted his office as the railway minister and claimed that he will prove his innocence and return to power. The Prime Minister refused to allow Sengupta to leave the cabinet and maintained him in the cabinet.
Following heavy public criticism, the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) of Bangladesh started investigating the allegation, though no case was registered. The ACC interviewed several people including the minister, his personal staff and the railway staffs. The car driver, was also asked to appear but could give deposition due to fear of security. Later, the ACC announced that the minister had no involvement in the alleged deal. The officers, including General Manager (East) and Divisional Commandant of Railways were only blamed.
On 5 October, a Dhaka-based private TV channel broadcast an interview of the car driver Ali Azam Khan, who described the incident with details about the scam in the recruitment process in the railways. Azam claimed that as a railway minister Sengupta alone got BDT 100 million as his share while other officers made a huge amount of money by way of corruption. He claimed to be living in a secret shelter being concerned about his safety.
Responding to media’s question about Azam’s statement, the Chairman of the ACC, Mr. Ghulam Rahman said, “If we had [sic] to listen to such statements, everything would have worked as per the words of a driver or a chaprashi (orderly),” brushing aside Azam’s statement.
This remark not only humiliates the people of Bangladesh but also provokes more questions about the institution’s mindset and ability to curb corruption. Does Rahman mean that the people having occupations like driving vehicles and working as an orderly are meant to be ‘sub-human’? What law allows Rahman to disqualify a driver or a peon from becoming a witness? It is an undeniable fact that numerous forms of corruption take place in the country, even with the complete knowledge of agencies like the ACC.
Rahman’s remark clearly exposes ACC’s unwillingness to investigate the case of corruption involving a political heavyweight. It frustrates the taxpayers, who pay for maintaining the ACC, expecting the institution to discharge its mandate. The ACC has consistently proved its inability to act against corruption of ministers, public servants, other political heavyweights and powerful bureaucrats. What they are perfect in doing however is to prosecute some lowly officer or a clerk and opposition politicians, to justify its existence. This allows the big shots to misuse the ACC to issue them a clean certificate as and when required.
The inability of any investigating institution, which fails to investigate a crime, cannot establish the innocence of the suspect. Rather, such inability further establishes the fact that how badly the institutions are structured and how poorly the systems function in a country.
