Corruption Watchdog Wants Teeth
Corruption Watchdog Wants Teeth
Kyrgyzstan’s anti-corruption agency is seeking powers to handle its own criminal cases, but commentators warn that this would overlap with the role of the law enforcement services.
On August 2, the National Agency for Preventing Corruption announced that it had drafted a bill that would give it the right to launch investigations and bring charges against suspects.
The agency’s spokesman, Baktybek Rysaliev, told the AKIpress news agency that at the moment it has to pass corruption cases to the prosecution service and police, where in his words “back-scratching” is prevalent.
The anti-corruption agency was set up in October 2005 together with the National Council for Combating Corruption, as part of an anti-graft strategy introduced that year.
Kyrgyzstan was among the first members of the Commonwealth of Independent States to sign up to the 2003 United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and the government has since changed many of its laws to fall into line with the accord. Corruption remains rife, however, and Kyrgyzstan is currently placed 142nd out of 163 countries in the annual ranking produced by the international watchdog group Transparency International.
Members of the prosecutor general’s office have voiced concern about the anti-corruption body’s bid for greater powers, and argue that there are already enough government agencies that handle investigations and prosecutions.
“The [agency] is asking for unjustifiably broad powers. Expanding its powers will not make it more effective,” said Abdygany Sheripbaev, head of criminal investigations at the prosecutor general’s office,.
He argued that the agency should focus instead on finding out why corruption happens in the first place.
Azimbek Beknazarov, who heads the Kyrgyz parliament’s anti-corruption committee, agrees that the agency is moving towards a situation where it would duplicate the work that law enforcement agencies already perform.
“It would make sense to abolish it altogether,” he said. “Instead of investing it with punitive powers, we should be galvanising the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the National Security Service and the prosecution service in their war against corruption.”
Opposition parliamentarian Temir Sariev agrees that giving the corruption agency powers to prosecute will not address the problems it is supposed to be dealing with. He believes the only thing needed to wage an effective war on corruption is political will on the part of the Kyrgyz government.
Avas Momunkulov, another member of parliament warns that the authorities might use the a beefed-up anti-corruption agency as a political tool against the opposition.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
On August 2, the National Agency for Preventing Corruption announced that it had drafted a bill that would give it the right to launch investigations and bring charges against suspects.
The agency’s spokesman, Baktybek Rysaliev, told the AKIpress news agency that at the moment it has to pass corruption cases to the prosecution service and police, where in his words “back-scratching” is prevalent.
The anti-corruption agency was set up in October 2005 together with the National Council for Combating Corruption, as part of an anti-graft strategy introduced that year.
Kyrgyzstan was among the first members of the Commonwealth of Independent States to sign up to the 2003 United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and the government has since changed many of its laws to fall into line with the accord. Corruption remains rife, however, and Kyrgyzstan is currently placed 142nd out of 163 countries in the annual ranking produced by the international watchdog group Transparency International.
Members of the prosecutor general’s office have voiced concern about the anti-corruption body’s bid for greater powers, and argue that there are already enough government agencies that handle investigations and prosecutions.
“The [agency] is asking for unjustifiably broad powers. Expanding its powers will not make it more effective,” said Abdygany Sheripbaev, head of criminal investigations at the prosecutor general’s office,.
He argued that the agency should focus instead on finding out why corruption happens in the first place.
Azimbek Beknazarov, who heads the Kyrgyz parliament’s anti-corruption committee, agrees that the agency is moving towards a situation where it would duplicate the work that law enforcement agencies already perform.
“It would make sense to abolish it altogether,” he said. “Instead of investing it with punitive powers, we should be galvanising the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the National Security Service and the prosecution service in their war against corruption.”
Opposition parliamentarian Temir Sariev agrees that giving the corruption agency powers to prosecute will not address the problems it is supposed to be dealing with. He believes the only thing needed to wage an effective war on corruption is political will on the part of the Kyrgyz government.
Avas Momunkulov, another member of parliament warns that the authorities might use the a beefed-up anti-corruption agency as a political tool against the opposition.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
