Essay
By Dr. Peter A. Dumbuya, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Introduction
On December 10, 2013, nearly a year after announcing its eligibility to apply for a compact, the Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) delivered the bad news to the government: it did not reselect Sierra Leone (along with Benin) to continue developing a compact with the agency because it did not pass the critical control of corruption indicator.
In a press release to that effect, the MCC’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Daniel W. Yohannes, was quoted as saying that “We recognize the efforts that the governments of Benin and Sierra Leone have undertaken to address corruption, and I can assure them that MCC is committed to helping those efforts succeed. I am hopeful that the continued and deepened efforts of both countries will
be reflected in future performance on the control of corruption indicator.”
Subsequent statements by the Chargé d’affaires in the U.S. Embassy and a visit to Freetown by the Deputy Vice President (West Africa) in the Department of Compact Operations, Mr. Jonathan Bloom, indicate that the MCC has not given up on Sierra Leone, and neither should we. Some countries, Mali, Morocco, and Mozambique among others, applied a number of times before landing a compact
or threshold agreement.
As the Publisher of The Patriotic Vanguard (Gibril Gbanabome Koroma) has written, all of us who envisage a prosperous, stable, and democratic country must join in the fight against corruption; the President alone, even by fiat, cannot eradicate corruption. In fact since 2000 the United Nations
and African Union have taken the fight against corruption globally because of the threat it poses to democratic governance, the rule of law, political stability, and economic development.
When the General Assembly adopted the UN Convention against corruption, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan offered this succinct summary of the reasons why member states should take affirmative steps to eradicate corruption: “This evil phenomenon is found in all countries, big
and small, rich and poor, but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a Government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
According to one study, illicit financial flows from developing countries amount to between $850 billion-$1 trillion a year. The latest victim of corruption is our country which has lost the opportunity to secure a compact reportedly worth $200 million.
What the MCC Compact Means
In announcing the framework for the MCC in March 2002, President George W. Bush linked U.S. economic assistance to policies and program that promote a free market economy and democracy, and alleviate poverty in recipient countries. The program’s foreign policy goal was and still is to promote U.S. national security interests by encouraging the growth and development of stable and secure democracies with market-driven economies. Pursuant to the
Millennium Challenge Act (MCA) of 2003, the MCC signs compacts with recipient countries under three overarching policy categories: 1) economic freedom; 2) investing in people; and 3) ruling justly. For FY 2013 and FY 2014 the MCC listed twenty indicators under these categories. The MCA empowers the MCC to enter into a compact with selected low income (below $1,945 per capita) and lower middle income ($4,085 per capita and below for FY 2014) countries, as determined by the World Bank. Each country competes for a compact within its
own income bracket.
The MCC describes a compact as a five-year grant to a country that meets
eligibility criteria. Under a threshold grant, the MCC offers assistance to countries to become eligible for a compact through policy and institutional reforms. To date the MCC has awarded twenty-seven grants (to 25 countries), most of which went to sub-Saharan African countries, and
twenty-four threshold grants (to 22 countries).
Even though Sierra Leone met performance standards in four other governance indicators (political rights, civil liberties, freedom of information, and the rule of law), the MCC’s Board of Directors did not reselect Sierra Leone because it did not meet performance standards in two other crucial indicators: control of corruption and government effectiveness.
The MCC, pursuant to the MCA, takes a dim view of corruption because it “hinders economic growth by increasing costs, lowering productivity, discouraging investment, reducing confidence in public institutions,
limiting the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, weakening systems of public financial management, and undermining investments in health and education. Corruption can also increase poverty by slowing economic growth, skewing government expenditure in favor of the rich and well-connected, concentrating public investment in unproductive projects,
promoting a more regressive tax system, siphoning funds away from essential public services, adding a higher level of risk to the investment decisions of low-income individuals, and reinforcing patterns of unequal asset ownership, thereby limiting the ability of the poor to borrow and increase their income.” (MCC Guide for FY 2014, p. 17). In short corruption can negate all the gains recorded under the other nineteen policy performance indicators in a
country’s scorecard.
In addition to data submitted by eligible countries, the MCC utilizes objective data and criteria developed by third parties (among them IMF, World Bank, UNESCO, Freedom House, and Heritage Foundation) to base its decision to award a compact or threshold grant.
Therefore, to suggest that Sierra Leone failed in its bid to secure a compact because of unwanted publicity by “irresponsible, vindictive and unpatriotic opposition press,” as the Hon. Minister of Information was reported to have said recently, does not square with the record. Press freedom
and free speech are policy objectives of the “ruling justly” category and one of the cornerstones of democracy. We have to segregate the incompetence and clumsiness of some in the Freetown- based media market from the MCC’s selection criteria upon which the agency based its decision.
Justice Brandeis (concurring in the opinion by Justice Sanford) reminded us in Whitney v.California (274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927)) that “it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”
Combating Corruption: From Commissions of Inquiry to Anti-Corruption Commission
The generally agreed upon definition of corruption is the use of public office for personal gain.The National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS, 2005) has identified abject poverty and the abuse of cultural practices as leading causes of corruption. Specifically, the NACS has identified low gross domestic product (GDP), low salaries for public sector employees, and bad governance as
contributing to the culture of corruption and impunity in Sierra Leone.
I have divided Sierra Leone’s post-independence anti-corruption strategies into
two broad chronological time frames. First, from 1961-2000 various governments used ad hoc commissions of inquiry to probe the extent of personal corruption by public officials.
Governments set up these commissions essentially to “name and shame” corrupt officials in response to public revelations of massive corruption in government departments. For instance in his memoir, Coming Back From the Brink in Sierra Leone, former President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah has written about the political character of two commissions in particular. He relates
how the report of the Beoku-Betts Commission of Inquiry into the activities of the Sierra Leone Produce Marketing Board (along with the Percy-Davies Commission), set up by the military junta, the National Reformation Council (1967-68), confused him with Mr. Abayomi Tejan, the then permanent secretary and his superior in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and how it cost him his house and land in Freetown in 1968. He considered the taking “unlawful”
because, according to him, it was motivated by “political reasons.” It took twenty years for the government to restore the property to him in September 1988.
The Beoku-Betts and other commissions of inquiry resulted from the changed
circumstances of domestic politics such as when a new government assumed office and wanted to demonstrate to the public that it was serious about combating corruption by former officials.
Those commissions of inquiry did not prevent corruption or eradicate it; they merely served as investigatory arms of incumbent governments. Most of their recommendations hardly touched upon how to ameliorate personal, systemic, or institutional corruption. Commissions of inquiry became rites of passage for incoming governments or for leaders struggling to reestablish some semblance of legitimacy in the midst of serious financial and economic crises and scandals.
Second, from 2000 to the present, demands for international accountability for donor funds in post-civil war reconstruction have led to the creation of an Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) by acts of Parliament. This ushered in the institutional phase of the anti-corruption strategy, but the challenge has always been to ensure that Sierra Leoneans take ownership of it so that it does not become another toothless “naming and shaming” investigatory tool in the
hands of government. Nevertheless, unlike the ad hoc commissions of inquiry, the ACC, first established in 2000, is a permanent statutory body designed to accomplish two broadly defined functions: first, to prevent, investigate, eradicate, suppress, and prosecute acts of corruption by public officials; and second, to educate the public about the nature and effects of corruption on
the body politic. The act of 2008 strengthened the ACC further by extending its reach to private sector or “retail” corruption which is just as pervasive and corrosive as public sector corruption.
How to Prevent, Detect, and Eradicate Corruption
The government and people of Sierra Leone must do more to eradicate corruption. They must pursue those who engage in corrupt practices at the highest levels of government and in the private sector through, among things, an independent and impartial Judiciary.
More importantly, the ACC has to collaborate with various law enforcement departments and agencies, including the Sierra Leone Police (SLP), in the fight against corruption. Although its efforts are often hamstrung by political interference, low salaries, and low morale, the SLP has a long history of
fighting crime in Sierra Leone, and given the manpower, training, and equipment it can augment the anti-corruption efforts of the ACC. This may give rise to the need for Parliament to further amend the current Anti-Corruption Act to empower the SLP to act in concert with the ACC in the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases. As the ACC itself has now acknowledged,
through one of its campaign posters (shown below), corruption contributes to extreme poverty in Sierra Leone.
One of many ways to tackle public corruption is by asset declaration by public officials.
As defined by the Anti-Corruption Act of 2008, a public official is someone who holds a public office in the service of the government of Sierra Leone. Therefore, pursuant to Article 7 of the AU Convention which Sierra Leone has signed, Parliament should enact legislation requiring all
public officials, upon the assumption of office, to declare and make public their assets, outside employment activities, investments, benefits, and other personal and real property in order to prevent a conflict of interest. Parliament and the civil service can adopt additional measures to strengthen the nonpartisan nature of civil service employment and protect civil servants from
partisan political retaliation, retribution, and influence. A tough anti-discrimination law will send a strong message to public sector employees and their confederates in the private sector that corruption is no longer going to be tolerated in the work place. Conflict of interest laws, rules, and regulations should also govern candidates for public office.
A lack of transparency and accountability in the management of public finances is one of the greatest challenges facing Sierra Leone today, and measures aimed at ameliorating this problem should encompass best practices in budget procedures, revenue and expenditure tracking, accounting and auditing of books, records, contracts, and other tangible things which should
be made public records (except to protect national security, trade and proprietary secrets, and individual privacy). An appropriate code of conduct for public officials will help promote integrity, honesty, and responsibility in the performance of their functions, consistent with Article 8 of the UN Convention and Article 5 of the AU Convention. Public officials, in the performance of their functions, should be encouraged to report instances of alleged corruption
to the appropriate authorities. “Whistle blowers” should be legally protected from retaliation by those they accuse of corrupt practices. Article 5 of the AU Convention urges States Parties to “Adopt measures that ensure citizens report instances of corruption without fear of consequent reprisals.” When all else fails, punitive measures can always be used to combat corruption.
The private sector is now covered by the 2008 Anti-Corruption Act. Therefore, measures that were once applicable only to the public sector are now applicable to the private sector as well, including, but not limited to, cooperation with the ACC, the Police, and other law enforcement agencies in preventing, detecting, and combating corruption.
Parliament is also urged to create oversight and regulatory agencies to monitor
compliance with the law by corporations, banks, and other businesses, and to provide legal recourse and remedies for those aggrieved. Article 10 of the AU Convention urges each State Party to “Proscribe the use of funds acquired through illegal and corrupt practices to finance political parties,” and to “Incorporate the principle of transparency into funding of political parties.”
Conclusion
Corruption is now widely accepted as an explanatory variable for chronic poverty and underdevelopment not only in Sierra Leone, but in most sub-Saharan African countries as well. The stark reality of corruption in Sierra Leone, a nation of about six million people with abundant natural resources, is reflected in every statistical analysis including the UN Development Program’s human development index, Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, and the Ibrahim Index on governance performance. The way forward is to strengthen the country’s institutional and structural capacity to deal with corruption and related crimes, including an independent judiciary and a credible and effective police force.
Most important of all are the intrinsic values of democracy and the rule of law which every citizen must inculcate as a way to improve governance. A strong work ethic and ethical values can also go a long way toward eradicating corruption and by extension alleviating poverty and chronic underdevelopment in Sierra Leone. As President Ernest B. Koroma rightly observed when the MCC delegation called on him at State House, we must combat corruption not so much because of the MCC compact but for our own sake!
Comments