How a functional Ombudsman can give interim government a historic opportunity for reform

The interim government in Bangladesh has initiated several reforms, such as restructuring the electoral process and overhauling anti-corruption measures. These initiatives have demonstrated a commitment to addressing governance issues. 

However, the establishment of a fully functional Ombudsman in Bangladesh presents a historic opportunity to strengthen the nation's democratic framework and enhance public trust in government institutions.

Despite being enshrined in the Constitution, the Ombudsman remains dormant, leaving a void in the nation's governance framework. This gap is particularly concerning given the growing public demand for stronger mechanisms to combat corruption, maladministration, and abuse of power. 

The interim government, entrusted with steering the country through reforms, must prioritise the creation of this institution as a cornerstone for good governance. By doing so, the Ombudsman would contribute to the long-term success of the reforms and restore public trust in the administration

By learning from global models and implementing necessary reforms, Bangladesh can address its governance challenges, combat corruption, and ensure that citizens' rights are protected. 

Restoring trust in Bangladesh's institutions

Bangladesh faces a governance crisis that includes widespread corruption, inefficiencies, and the abuse of power across various levels of government. These issues have eroded public trust and hindered the country's progress. The Ombudsman, as a critical tool for oversight, could be a game-changer in holding the government accountable and improving governance practices.

Globally, the role of the Ombudsman has proven transformative in promoting transparency and safeguarding citizens' rights. The institution investigates complaints, proposes reforms, and holds public officials accountable. 

Yet, despite the constitutional provision under Article 77, the office in Bangladesh has remained underdeveloped due to the lack of sufficient political will to implement the Ombudsman Act of 1980. 

A functional Ombudsman in Bangladesh could be pivotal in addressing the governance deficiencies that continue to hinder development. The office would investigate complaints of maladministration, corruption, and abuse of power, ensuring that government actions are transparent and in the public interest. 

The Ombudsman could also protect the rights of citizens and contribute to social justice by addressing systemic issues such as government delays, discrimination, and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

For instance, the Ombudsman could investigate unexplained wealth among public officials, providing an independent mechanism to address corruption that often evades conventional legal scrutiny. It could also serve as a mediator between citizens and the government, fostering transparency and dialogue while reducing the burden on the judicial system.

The failure to activate this office has allowed governance gaps to persist, further entrenching corruption and undermining the rule of law. This presents a lost opportunity to address systemic corruption and restore public confidence in government institutions.

Learning from global models

While Bangladesh grapples with the absence of a functional Ombudsman, numerous countries have successfully implemented the office, demonstrating its value in governance. 

Sweden, for example, has had an Ombudsman since 1809, a pioneering institution that investigates complaints against government officials, including judges, and can initiate legal actions against misconduct. This system has significantly contributed to Sweden's reputation for transparency and good governance.

Similarly, Finland's Parliamentary Ombudsman, founded in 1919, oversees public officials, including the judiciary, ensuring no one is beyond scrutiny. Other nations, such as Denmark and New Zealand's Ombudsman ensure transparency by investigating administrative actions and resolving disputes between citizens and government agencies.

South Korea's Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and India's Lokpal provide models of effective independent bodies that investigate complaints and recommend systemic reforms. These examples highlight the importance of establishing a robust Ombudsman to address corruption and improve governance.

For Bangladesh, an Ombudsman could play a proactive role in identifying and addressing systemic governance issues, recommending administrative reforms, and acting as an intermediary between citizens and government agencies. It would serve as a vital check on executive power, ensuring that the government is held accountable for its actions. 

These global examples provide compelling evidence of the Ombudsman's potential to curb corruption, enhance public trust, and promote democratic governance. 

Reforming the Ombudsman Act

One of the key challenges to establishing a functional Ombudsman in Bangladesh is the lack of comprehensive reforms to the Ombudsman Act of 1980. While the Act outlines the Ombudsman's powers, it contains several weaknesses that hinder its effectiveness.

Firstly, the appointment process remains open to political influence. The vague criteria of "known legal or administrative ability" and "conspicuous integrity" could lead to partisan appointments, undermining the Ombudsman's impartiality. 

To address this, the appointment process should be reformed to ensure greater independence, with a selection committee composed of representatives from multiple political parties, civil society organisations, and the judiciary. 

Secondly, the Act's investigative powers are limited. Sections 6, 7, and 9 provide the Ombudsman with the authority to investigate complaints, but they lack mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Ombudsman's recommendations. 

To address this, the Act should be amended to grant the Ombudsman binding authority over its findings, compelling authorities to implement corrective actions. 

Finally, the Ombudsman's ability to enforce its decisions is hampered by the absence of a clear enforcement mechanism. Introducing an Ombudsman-specific tribunal could empower the institution to enforce its findings and ensure compliance with its recommendations.

Kollol Kibria is an advocate, human rights activist, and political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected] 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.