By Nadja Kostka

Bloomberg reports that the abuses first came to public attention in September 2007, when previous World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz decided to suspend funding for the projects until better anti-graft measures were put in place.

The report, published on 11 January after a two-year inquiry, contains "sharp criticism of the bank itself failing to set up adequate measures to ensure that the large loans [US $568 million] were properly spent," according to the International Herald Tribune (IHT). The same article quotes the new World Bank President Robert Zoellick who commented that, "there were weaknesses in project design, supervision and evaluation."

According to the BBC, the projects included a "[US] $193.7m programme to tackle HIV/Aids, a [US] $124.8m tuberculosis scheme and a [US] $144m malaria programme." The IHT writes that the inquiry found that the corruption in the procurement process of the HIV/AIDS prevention programme meant that "poorly performing test kits" had been supplied, "producing erroneous or invalid results, potentially resulting in the further spread of disease."

In response to this detailed report, Zoellick says that "we [The World Bank] must keep up the pressure to eradicate corruption from our projects and make sure the money gets to the poor", adding that he is prepared to "punish any staff found to be negligent in spotting and reporting abuses" (Bloomberg). According to a World Bank press release, Zoellick said that, “the [World] Bank’s governance and anticorruption work from now on would be placed before the scrutiny of independent and external reviewers to ensure that the institution was making tangible progress in its fight against corruption.”

For its part, the Indian government has promised to take "exemplary" action against those found guilty, the Times of India reports.

By Mike Sidwell

The SFO discontinued its investigation into arms deals between BAE systems and the Saudi Arabian royal family in December 2006. In November 2007, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and Corner House Research succeeded in winning the right for a judicial review.

For its part, the SFO claims, “it acted lawfully in deciding to drop the probe and is contesting the court challenge,” writes the Financial Times. Robert Wardle, the director of the SFO, told the court in a witness statement: “The idea of discontinuing the investigation went against my every instinct as a prosecutor. I wanted to see where the evidence led,” (Guardian). In a press statement on 14 December, 2006, Wardle declared that ending the inquiry was necessary “to safeguard national and international security,” (The Times).

The Financial Times writes that the campaign groups claim that, “Tony Blair, the former prime minister, and his government caved in to intense lobbying from BAE…after senior members of the Saudi royal family threatened to cancel a £10 bn (US $19bn) aircraft contract and to withdraw security cooperation if the investigation was not halted.” The groups’ lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, has argued that the real reason for dropping the investigation, “was not national security but the commercial situation”, writes the Guardian. If this is the case she said, then the decision would therefore be seen as a violation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, notes The Times. According to the Guardian, Lord Justice Moses, one of Britain’s most senior judges, commented: “It is no good just waving the flag of national security. If (its use) is so wide, it undermines the [OECD] treaty."

Lord Justice Moses also expressed surprise that, “the government did not seem to consider alternative solutions in the face of such threats” and accused the British government of “rolling over to Saudi threats” (Finanicial Times).

The judges’ ruling has still to be announced.

By Mike Sidwell

According to the BBC: “The charges relate to the awarding in 2004 of a contract to operate a coal mine in northern Bangladesh to a Chinese firm.” The assistant director of the Anti-Corruption Commission, Shamsul Alam, told AFP that: “irregularities over the awarding of a contract to run a coal mine in northern Bangladesh in 2004 led to state losses of [US] 23 million dollars.”

“This is the third graft case against the Bangladesh National Party [BNP] chief, who ruled the country from 2001 to 2006 and is in jail since September last year,” notes the Hindustan Times. Rizvi Ahmad, spokesperson for the BNP, has declared that: “The charges which have been framed against the BNP chief are false, fabricated and are designed to taint her political image, banning her from future general elections," reports The Earth Times.

According to Reuters: “More than 170 key political figures have been detained since the interim authority took charge in January last year, following months of political violence.” Sheikh Hasina, who leads the Awami League party and was prime minister of Bangladesh from 1996 to 2001, is also in custody on corruption and other charges (Associated Press).

Khandaker Delwar Hossain, the Khaleda Zia-nominated BNP secretary general, has stated: “Holding elections while Hasina and Ms. Zia are both in jail would be unacceptable”, reports the Bangladesh Independent.

The BBC writes that instead of organising elections within three months as laid down by the constitution, the caretaker government has said it first needs “to clean up Bangladesh's corrupt political system.”