MEDIA & SOCIETY The Inside Story of the Anti Corruption Commission Posted by on Jun 27, 2008, 11:17

Every democratic state has laws which provide for the protection of fundamental rights of its citizens from the various vices which inhabit every state. To ensure the protection of such freedoms states frequently impose laws and duties on its citizens to ensure that the weakest in society are protected. This extends to institutions of the state, which are charged with such responsibilities. The army for example is charged with the responsibility of protecting citizens of Sierra Leone from armed external attacks and invasion. The police are charged with the responsibility of maintaining law and order and protecting the rights of those in society who are not in a position to protect themselves from abuse by the strong and powerful.

There are many other such institutions in Sierra Leone which are not the focus of this piece but the primary focus of this piece is the Anti Corruption Commission, which is charged with the responsibility of eradicating corruption, a national cancer that has plagued this nation for decades.

Corruption has ruined lives in this country and has left this country at the bottom of the human development index, a situation which should heap shame on us as Sierra Leoneans. For a country with such vast resources to be ranked bottom is a very serious concern and a national disgrace. The Anti Corruption Commission was established to improve the way of life of Sierra Leoneans and its image as a corrupt free nation. This piece aims to look at whether it is indeed time to put the Anti Corruption Commission behind our back for good or to develop strategies that can help promote the aspirations and goals of the citizens and government of the state.

The former president of this republic, Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, in a speech to parliament prior to the enactment of the Anti Corruption Act 2000, told Members of Parliament that “Sierra Leone has been labeled as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Sierra Leone does not deserve such a bad name and my government would shortly be establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission to ensure that impunity and corrupt practices remain a thing of the past”. Such was the laudable vision President Kabbah had that led to the enactment of the Anti Corruption Act 2000, which  is divided into seven parts, making provision for various headings like the establishment of the commission and its functions,  corruption practices, the powers of investigation, prosecution of offences under the Act and administrative provisions.

In theory, the Commission was supposed to be a vibrant state institution and Section 51 of the Act specifically provided for the Consolidated fund (the Government Account) to pick up the bill of maintaining the commission. Section 51 provides “The Administrative expenses of the Commission, including salaries, allowances, gratuities and pensions of the members and staff of the Commission, shall be a charge on the Consolidated fund.”  Further, contrary to arguments raised in many quarters, the independence of the Commission was guaranteed in Section 53 of the Act which provides “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission shall not in the performance of its functions, be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority”.

These two provisions equipped the Commission with what it needed to ensure its smooth operations. Incidentally the Commission has as its vision’ “A corrupt free Sierra Leone which will ensure that the socio-economic needs of its citizens are met.” The Commission further has as its mission; “leading the fight against corruption in partnership, through public education, prevention, enforcement and compliance for the benefit of all citizens.” If the mission statements and vision were actualized, Sierra Leone would for ever be free from the endless cycle of corruption and poverty that has plagued her for decades since independence.

The question is whether this vision has remained exactly that, “a vision”, since the inception of the Anti Corruption Commission without any visible signs of progress that should justify its continued existence or it has made some progress in its mission statement, the benefits of which can be actualized in the reduction of corrupt practice, at the very least.

The commission has been in existence for a period of eight years and to get a flavour of its achievements, one needs to have a good read of two specific documents. The Anti –corruption Commission Annual Report 2007 and the strategic plan 2008 -2010, both of which makes for a depressing reading.

Further, readers would have heard a lot of talk from the current commissioner, Abdul Tejan Cole, about the new Anti-corruption Bill 2008 as to how it would give the Commission sweeping new powers in the fight against corruption and ensure its independence from the office of the Attorney General, which has been one of several of their “constraints”. Upon a close analysis, one would see that the Commission has been less than forthright and have misrepresented the facts as to the significance of the Attorney General’s office having an oversight power over the activities of the Commission. The Attorney General’s office, this writer maintains has been treated unfairly over this issue and one would want to suggest that the Attorney General should continue to maintain the power to prosecute corruption offences after the Commission has investigated them for reasons that would become clear later. The idea that the Attorney general’s office is a hindrance to the independence of the Commission is pure “hogwash”.

The question to be asked is “WHAT HAS THE COMMISSION ACHIEVED IN THE EIGHT YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE BEARING IN MIND THE TREMENDOUS RESOURCES IT IS ENJOYING? The answer is NOTHING

 It may be argued that this writer is being unfair and sycophants, with different arguments that the Commission needs more time to work with a new Commissioner and sweeping new powers to be given to them. The truth is that the Commission has outlived its usefulness for the following reasons:

1.                  Corruption is still rife in Sierra Leone, eight years after the inception of the commission with corrupt practices still representing a substantial part of the income of many Sierra Leoneans be they in the public or private sector

2.                Sierra Leone continues to be at the bottom of the Human Development Index.

3.                The Judiciary is still ineffective with injustice, patronage and sycophancy still forming the bedrock of the judiciary.

4.                Donor funds still being misappropriated leading to a reduction in further donor funding into this country.

5.                 Failure of the Commission to recoup a significant proportion of misappropriated funds, leading to a lack of actualization of revenue on the part of government whilst incurring huge expenditure in terms of running the Commission. Failure in being an effective deterrent to corrupt practices.

6.                Loss of confidence by the donor community.

7.                 The Commission being corrupt in itself.

With these factors in mind, can the Commission justify its continued existence?  This writer maintains a different opinion about that.  In support of these arguments raised, one would now rely upon the Commission’s own annual official report to make an unbias analysis. We start off with the argument that the Commission needs to be independent from the Attorney General’s Office if it is to be effective in combating corruption is an argument, which has been frequently used by the Commission and its Commissioner to defend its failure to effectively combat corruption. From its own annual report 2007, the Commission only referred 5 cases to the Attorney General in 2007.

In 2006 the Commission had 9 outstanding investigations with 24 new investigations launched in 2007, of which only the 5 cases mentioned above were referred with 8 investigations closed due to lack of evidence, 20 incomplete investigations. What is significant about these figures is that the only case charged to court by the attorney General resulted in a conviction whilst the Commission is pussy footing around with 28 cases, 9 of which have been outstanding since 2006. What a return for a Commission that consumes a whopping Le 8,000,000,000 (8 Billion Leones) almost 3,000,000 USD per annum.

This simply means that the Commission over the past eight years had enjoyed a budget   of at least 50-60 billion Leones or $20,000,000 for completely investigating only 97 cases.

Moving on to the Commission’s strategic plan, it is again another document that makes a depressing reading. To start with the Commission’s failure to specifically set out its overall performance in the document; preferring instead to disassociate itself from their own failures and cast the blame elsewhere on other agencies like the judiciary that did not receive  a quarter of the budget allocated to the Commission. It is significant to note that the DFID annual support to the Commission document listed Sierra Leone as amongst the bottom five countries internationally. It is therefore necessary to critically scrutinize the investigations conducted since the inception of the Commission in 2000 to 2008, a period of 8 years. 713 cases were investigated by the Commission and only 669 were completed whilst 44 remain incomplete, 8 years after it started. Of the completed number of 669,572 were discontinued for lack of evidence or other reasons (inefficiency). 97 were referred to the Attorney General for action. So effectively of all cases handled by the Commission, 81% came to nothing whilst only 15% of those cases went to the Attorney General’s Office. The Attorney General in turn sent 59 cases to the courts for prosecution, over 61% of cases sent to him.

The rest the Commission has failed to state is what happened to them. On average therefore, the Commission has only been able to refer 12 cases per annum for the past 8 years, costing tax payers of this country a whopping

Le666, 000,000 per case. What a reckless waste of resources? The conclusion that can be drawn from these figures is that the Attorney General’s office is clearly not to blame for the Commission’s failure but the Commission itself. Looking again at the budget for the Commission for the year 2007, the Commission requested for 9 billion Leones and was allocated 8.34 billion Leones and the performance of the commission was to send 5 cases to the Attorney General which equates at a cost of 1.6 billion Leones per case, with 28 cases still not having made any headway. We are not sure as to whether this is the Commission to which President Koroma intends to rely upon to fight corruption and to ensure a zero tolerance stance.

In addition to this ridiculous amount being spent on the Commission each year the Commission is only based in Freetown with a small “port” in Bo which has never investigated any cases of corruption and an empty office in Makeni, which has already cost it over $54000 in rent over the past two years. In addition, it is proposed that to implement the National Anti Corruption strategy would cost more money and a further $536,000 per annum thereafter. Further the Commission key area of focus is on prevention and education with little emphasis on proactive investigations and prosecution. Taking a look at the Commission’s budget and expenditure table for 2007 alone, the Commission’s figures amounted to:

General Expenditure -Le2.118 Billion

Training and Development- Le410 Million

Prevention/system -Le 592 Million.

Community Sensitization -Le 929 Million

Investigations- Le200 Million

Salaries for staff and other expenses-Le4.1Billion

At a glance, one can see where the Commission places its emphasis. Its expenditure budget is ten times than the investigation budget with the community sensitization budget almost five times than the investigations budget. Again what a scandalous waste of resources? The public is fully aware of the need for tackling corruption as is evidenced by the continuing public outcry about the issue. Why on earth is this Commission spending Le929 Million of taxpayer’s money on ridiculous school plays, public lecturers, dramatization and march pasts all in the name of sensitization? Does this Commission seriously want to tell the people of this nation that a march past or a school play would change the attitudes of the corrupt?

Which corrupt person in this country is not aware that his actions are unacceptable and that it is harmful to Sierra Leone? Or is it the serious threat of imprisonment and forfeiture that would serve as an effective deterrent to eradicate corruption in the country?