Controlling corruption

Corruption is an important issue in several of our case study countries. National anti-corruption action plans have been approved in Uganda, and the new Government in Ghana have committed themselves to policies of zero tolerance. It is difficult to assess success in this field, but some general observations can be made and some interesting innovations identified.

Detecting and publicising instances of corruption can be approached in a number of ways. Reports by the Auditor General (AG) can be important in exposing corruption – particularly when they are timely, and where there is a mandatory requirement for follow-up. In Uganda, for example, a Treasury Memorandum has to be prepared setting out Government responses to points made in the AG’s reports. Progress reports describe what action has been taken to follow up recommendations in audit reports. It is mandatory to refer suspected cases of fraud to the Inspector General or to the police.

Several countries require leaders to declare their assets and commercial interests. There are however a number of problems with existing practice. Asset declarations need to be open for public inspection, and need to cover family members as well as the individual politician.

Involving civil society, business and government employees in monitoring the probity of PEM can be an effective, and often cost-efficient, complement to official, institutional anti-corruption measures. The media have played a major role in exposing high-level, large-scale corruption, obliging Parliament and ultimately Government to act, but tend to be less effective in addressing routine low-level corruption which typically has a more direct impact on the poor. Civil society involvement in lobbying and drawing attention to cases of corruption has raised awareness, and helped make corruption an election issue in several countries, including Ghana and Uganda (where NGOs are involved in monitoring the use of PAF funds, and are encouraged to draw attention to abuses).

Uganda uses a range of approaches to help the public hold officials and local Government politicians to account. Information is widely publicised, with local FM radio and newspapers used to announce what funds have been released to local Government and what they are to be used for. This is extended down to requiring notices to be posted on schools giving details of monies received and staff employed, to enable the public to question illegitimate spending or ghost workers. ‘Whistleblower protection’ is also under discussion in some countries, to ensure that employees who report corruption are not penalised, though opinions differ on whether this can be made effective.

Collecting information on the extent and nature of corrupt practices is an important input to the design of anti-corruption measures. Tanzania and Uganda have used tracking studies to follow funds through to final destination on a sample basis. In Uganda, the finding that only a fraction of funds reached their intended destination was the main factor behind the decision to make grants to local Government far more conditional as to use and subject to stricter reporting and monitoring. Surveys of general public and business opinion regarding the experience of corruption provides useful information for benchmarking the extent of the problem in different arms of Government, with repeat surveys potentially able to detect significant shifts in behaviour. Information from participatory appraisals can help to identify aspects of the Government organisation that facilitate corruption. For example, in Ghana health, the PPA recommended that payments should be centralised in a single point in the facility, properly recorded and receipted, and with charges prominently displayed. These recommendations have in principle been accepted, though there are still some examples of bad practice.

For anti-corruption policies to be credible and thus effective it is essential that information is acted on once obtained. Formal prosecution needs to address corruption by senior figures in order to set the right example, and the punishment needs to provide a realistic disincentive. Uganda has a provision for fines related to the value of the corrupt gains, but the provision is limited to the specific case under investigation, even when the assets held by the accused can only be accounted for by a long history of corrupt activity. Prosecution of corruption is often handicapped by the difficulty of proving cases, the backlog of cases clogging the courts, and by corruption within the police and judiciary – found in surveys in Ghana and Uganda to be the two branches of Government that are often the most corrupt. Reform of the criminal justice system may therefore be a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Parliament can play a vital role in controlling high level corruption. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) discusses the Auditor General’s reports, and can recommend that Parliament pass a vote of censure on Ministers who have presided over corruption or mismanagement. In Uganda, Parliament has had a number of successes in forcing the resignation of Ministers, and criminal proceedings or sacking of senior officials.

Many different bodies are involved in the fight against corruption. Both Ghana and Uganda have attempted to co-ordinate by introducing an overall anti-corruption action plan that, in the case of

Uganda, is co-ordinated by a specific anti-corruption Minister. Making co-ordination effective has nevertheless proved difficult.