|
Home
Page > Press Releases
& News Reports > Addressing Corruption in post
conflict Sierra Leone
ADDRESSING
CORRUPTION IN POST CONFLICT SIERRA LEONE
Corruption
is an obstacle to good governance. Various organisations
and departments within the government and civil society
in Sierra Leone as well as the international community have
been attempting to address the menace of corruption. However,
these efforts are being crippled by the lack of effective
mechanisms. “Good governance,” in the view of Kofi Anan,
“is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating
poverty and promoting development”. When corruption lingers
as a system within the governance of a nation, development
that is sustainable becomes an illusion and the eradication
of poverty remains a distant dream. This article identifies
the nature and scope of corruption and the strengths and
weakness of current efforts to tackle the problem.
State Initiatives
The
government under the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) has
undertaken various donor sponsored initiatives to combat
corruption. The Governance Reform Secretariat (GRS) has
introduced a code of ethics for the private sector which
spells out both expectations and repercussions for non-compliance.
The GRS has initiated also the construction of a decentralised
framework of government and it has instituted performance
appraisal systems. The public Expenditure Tracking Survey
has exposed overall discrepancies between money allocated
to line ministries and money received at grass roots levels.
Controls are also being introduced in the Ministry of Finance,
especially in the budgeting process. Nevertheless, these
controls are being flouted already by various ministries
in the face of both anti corruption agencies and public
sector reform mechanisms.
The
judiciary, the public account and public expenditure committees,
and other integrity pillars have all received training,
rehabilitation and resources from donor agencies, but they
still lack the required impetus to make a real impact. For
example, a new legislation was introduced to upgrade the
authority of the Auditor General’s office, making it similar
to that of renowned international audit institutions. However,
the government has blocked approvals of the conditions of
service for the last 15 months.
The above initiatives have been largely donor-driven and
focus heavily on restricting discretionary and monopolistic
power through administrative and market-orientated reform.
They are in their early stages and are yet to have any real
impact other than to highlight the fact that corruption
is taking place without attributing blame or responsibility.
Stiff resistance has also been encountered within the relevant
ministries, departments and institutions from vested interests.
According to World Bank representative, Peter Eigen, “Politicians
and political interests invariably perceive the introduction
of greater transparency and accountability as an erosion
of their power.” This illustrates the urgency with which
effective mechanisms of investigation and punishment are
required.
To
investigate and discourage administrative abuses and other
forms of corruption the government has provided for the
institution of the office of the Ombudsman and the Anti
Corruption Commission with help from international donors.
After years of unproductive efforts one could draw the conclusion
that these mechanisms have been set up to satisfy donor
requirements for a comprehensive anticorruption strategy.
It has now become clear that the government consented in
principle to an anti-corruption strategy in order to satisfy
requirements for donor funds without implementing the anti-corruption
strategies. The institutions mentioned above have been crippled
by a lack of political will.
We
derive from current circumstances and efforts that the government
has shifted from the former stance of the All People’s Congress
(APC) regime under Siaka Stevens of engaging in and defending
corruption to a policy of engaging in corrupt practices
unofficially whilst pursuing an anti-corruption policy on
the surface, thus satisfying donor requirements for aid.
This is clear in the establishment of the Anti Corruption
Commission. Government legislation states that all cases
investigated and approved for prosecution by the Anti Corruption
Commission must receive the assent of the Attorney General
who is also the Minister of Justice. This intentional infrastructural
flaw has meant that cases put forward by the Commission
which raise allegations of corruption against individuals
with political connections have been interfered with through
the political link of the Attorney General. Such an influence
cannot occur on a continual basis without the knowledge
and subsequent approval of the President. Cases involving
such individuals as the former Deputy Minister of Finance,
Mohamed Daramy, who was to be tried for false pretences
had his case handed over to the police in November 2002
with little or no action since.
Another
aspect of the legislation, which has been employed by Attorney
General at the expense of the due process of the law, is
the insistence that trials be brought directly to the high
court, and this requires statements (many of which must
be obtained from the provinces) to be retaken under oath.
The Attorney General has used this obstacle as an excuse
for the 51% of cases submitted to his office, which still
await a decision for more than a year with the status of
many having never been communicated to the Anti Corruption
Commission. He has also misled donors through the exclusion
of cases from the consultative group results framework progress
report. Compounding the problem of arbitrary and administrative
justice at the Attorney General’s office is the distinct
lack of due process in the Judiciary. Inadequate remuneration
in comparison to private practitioners coupled with working
conditions have resulted in poor performance from public
prosecutors who often fail to appear in court for corruption
cases. Delays in cases before the Judiciary, most notably
in the case of Justice Tajudeen, whose appeal is still pending,
and whose case was submitted to the Attorney Generals office
in October 2000, are a clear signal that Judicial reform
is urgently required. Since the inception of the Anti Corruption
Commission in 2000, not one case brought before the court
has been finally decided.
In
contrast to such donor-based initiatives the president has
shown a complete lack of will to exercise his own power
in the fight against corruption. Weeping and pleading with
corrupt officials at the Sierra Leone Ports Authority are
unlikely to incur change when the President is contrasting
his words of condemnation with actions of condonement. These
actions have come in the form of his promotion of Kanji
Daramy to the role of Presidential spokeman after he was
found culpable of the disappearance of Le 159 million at
the Sierra Leone Postal Services (SALPOST) under the Fergusson-Nicol
enquiry. The attitude of the Presidents towards addressing
corruption was clearly illustrated in his testimony to the
truth and reconciliation Commission where he states:
“I
have often described myself as the chief servant of the
people and require all other public officers to regard themselves
as servants of the people. A practical way of our illustration
of the concept of service and not personal gain is by subjecting
our own salaries to the determination by a commission comprising
civil society and other prominent citizens, particularly
those who have demonstrated the highest level of integrity
in private or public life. This of course will require an
adjustment of the constitution position.”
Such
anti corruption rhetoric followed by immediate disassociation
from implementation is symbolic of the government’s anti
corruption campaign. A stubborn unwillingness to prioritise
the good of the country ahead of the entrenchment in power
of the President, his party and his political supporters
has emerged. Such a stance can only be reversed through
pressure from watchdog agencies and the international community.
Civil Society Efforts
Corruption
has not been high on the agenda of civil society since it
started gaining hold in Sierra Leone. Movement of prominent
activists into politics and other more lucrative roles,
especially international organisations and institutions,
has left a void of leadership in Sierra Leone‘s civil society.
The National Accountability Group (NAG)is Sierra Leone’s
only civil society organisation with a corruption focus.
Like many other civil society groups, NAG lacks the capacity
to conduct effective research and investigation and its
members are forced to juggle their own professions with
the organisation’s work. With the common acknowledgement
of increasing intensity of competition for donor funds,
the reluctance of civil society groups to undertake advocacy
against corruption is somewhat perplexing. Whether the reason
is that the task appears to be mammoth or that civil society
actors do not wish to subject their own personal backgrounds
to the scrutiny of embarking on such work is unclear. The
answer may lie in the Anti Corruption Commission Coalition
which released its strategic plan recently. Overcoming tentative
feet due to the threat of self-implication has been a commonly
acknowledged deterrent for civil society and NGOs.
The
media conversely have played a much more enthusiastic role,
especially the press. Although often accused of political
influence and “purchased” articles, newspapers have been
at the forefront of the watchdog role. It is unfortunate
however, that all too often articles with credible backgrounds
are discredited by accompanied inaccurate allegations and
a lack of understanding of the mechanism or procedure of
which they are covering. For the approximately 30% of the
population who are literate and are more likely to keep
track of political transgressions, the reporting is more
pertinent. The ordinary citizen, on the other hand, generally
listens to the radio. Features which create public awareness
such as the role, reason, and meaning for access to key
institutions such as the Anti corruption Commission, and
the office of the Ombudsman are timely and appropriate.
The Sierra Leone Broadcasting service covers important political
events and various workshops but rarely embarks on investigative
or impartial reporting. What is common amongst the three
media mediums is a lack of resources and influence. They
have had very little impact on policy.
The
impact of the International Community
The
only players who are expected to have a real impact on government
policy and corruption are the international donors. These
agencies have established different integrity and accountability
mechanisms and systems, both externally and internally of
government ministries and departments. A predominantly bottom-up
approach has been undertaken with institutional reforms
at the forefront. Such reform significantly decreases discretionary
power and unaccountability through the introduction of clearly
defined administrative rules and regulations, ethical standards
of public service, and administrative and financial systems.
Such institutional focus however, fails to recognise that
corruption is not only organised and systematic but also
casual and endemic, especially at the highest levels of
government. Individuals are likely to continue corrupt practices
in defiance of comprehensive administrative systems of control
if they feel that there is not a significant deterrent (in
the form of an effective Anti Corruption Commission or other
punishment mechanism). This can be seen in the observance
of the blatant transgression of the tender process by the
Ministry of Finance recently. This action was accepted by
the Africa Development Bank Group despite cabinet finding
that the rules of the tender process had been broken. A
reluctance to tackle prosecutorial and executive deterrents
of corruption with vigour has also allowed a continuation
of the status quo. Newly introduced measures of constraints
are likely to have little effect in the medium to long term
whilst corruption continues to occur without the punishment
of those engaging in it at the highest levels of government.
These effects indicate the limited impact of the efforts
of the international community to curb corruption in Sierra
Leone.
What
is of further concern is the lack of effective and specific
pressure on the government from donor agencies. A World
Bank study of African countries found that an increase in
aid caused a worsening in policy and vice versa. Kenya has
sold the same reform policy four times in eleven years.
This may not, however, be the case in Sierra Leone where
approximately 70% of the government’s budget comes from
donor agencies, and the problem is not the government’s
ability, it is its will. Whilst government initiative and
ownership has been paramount, the international community
has largely failed to tailor specific amounts of aid to
specific areas of reform and to ensure that specific areas
of reform are being duly rewarded. A relevant example is
requirement of 25% of all corruption cases submitted to
the Attorney General’s office to be successfully prosecuted
or dismissed by the court by June 2003 and 50% by the end
of the year under a formal agreement between the United
Kingdom and Sierra Leone Government. Observers might note
that the Government of Sierra Leone has failed miserably
to uphold its commitment (the current percentages is 0%),
but what should also be noted is that it has taken action
which would have otherwise been unlikely.
The
Way forward
In
spite of the popular will of the people to return to genuine
multi party democracy, the government itself has become
a stumbling block to transparency, accountability, the rule
of law and genuine efforts to curb corruption. Strategies
to tackle corruption must address its personalised (individuals
breaking rules or law for their own benefit), institutional
(structural, administrative, auditing, communications etc)
and systemic (illegitimate and/no corrupt outside interests)
nature. Comprehensively addressing one or two of these issues
and neglecting the other(s) would likely prove frivolous.
For
tangible and intangible effects of advocacy and reporting
to occur regular, accurate, impartial and detailed accounts
of key issues must be discussed through relevant mediums.
A united core of civil society must utilise access to, and
relations with, integrity mechanisms. A government which
protects instead of holding accountable its own is not one
which can sincerely claim to be fighting corruption. Official
condemnation coupled with unofficial condonement will only
lead to an environment where public sentiment mirrors the
anti government feeling which led to the recent eleven-year
war. The need for the president to show leadership similar
to that of President Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, through
an executive exercise of power against individuals engaging
in corruption had long since been apparent. The only stakeholder
leverage to influence such policy is the international community.
This influence needs to be directed towards creating bonafide
disincentive for those engaging in corrupt practice at the
highest level of government. Such measures would compliment
the introduction of administrative measures that are likely
to be flouted if highlevel officials continue to set a corrupt
example and are allowed to act with impunity. Although a
bird’s eye donor perspective may allow for the acceptance
of corruption in exchange for peace and security in the
short term, to ignore a crucial opportunity to create significant
change under the security of the world’s largest United
Nations peacekeeping force would only serve to lay the same
foundations of misrule and marginalisation which lead to
the recent war from which Sierra Leone is now attempting
to recover.
Chris Mahony
Campaign for Good Governance
|
