The Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme remains daringly committed to monitoring key government institutions that have an indispensable role in the transition process. Since the Anti-Corruption Commission is the institution that has the statutory mandate to hold all government functionaries accountable, it has not been exempt from our monitoring activities.
Corruption is a serious and fundamental threat to good governance and development in any society. With Sierra Leone now at the crossroads, there is the need not only for the existence of an independent institution to fight corruption, but also the essential task of monitoring such an institution and giving independent accounts to the public and stakeholders. Monitoring can help collectively stifle corruption, the practice that continues to rob the country of good governance and social justice.
In the January edition of our publication, the works of the Anti-Corruption Commission viz a viz investigation, prosecution and conviction, from its inception to 31st December, 2005 was examined. 2006 is half way through, and the ACC is in the midst of a crucial period, particularly now because it has a new Commissioner. This article will generally look at the ACC’s activities since inception with special focus on the first half of 2006.
Investigation
By December 2005, the ACC had investigated five hundred and fifty one cases. In addition, from the start of 2006 to date, the ACC has carried out eighteen investigations. Resultantly, since its establishment in July 2000, the ACC has conducted five hundred and sixty nine investigations.
Prosecution
Of the eighteen cases that have been investigated since January 2006, only three have been charged to court-one to the High Court and two to the Magistrate Court. By December 2005, the ACC had brought fifty one cases to court. Out of the five hundred and sixty nine cases investigated by the ACC since its founding, a total of fifty four cases have been charged to court. Presently, there are six anti-corruption cases in the High Court, as five backlogged cases (2001-2005) carried over to the New Year. Unlike the High Court, the Magistrate Court has only two cases before it currently and no backlogged cases from 2005. Lastly, there are thirteen cases before the Attorney General and Minister of Justice awaiting decision on their justiciability, or the determination whether the cases are worth being charged to court. Out of the thirteen cases that are with him, seven are from 2006 and the remaining six are backlogs from 2001-2005.
Conviction
This year has seen the convictions of three accused persons. By the end of 2005, the Anti-Corruption Commission therefore had a total of twenty one convictions. Since it began, the ACC has arrived at a sum of twenty four convictions out of the fifty four cases charged to court. Additionally, eight cases are pending completion in both the Magistrate and High Courts. But, since the year began, there have been no incidents of discharges or cases being thrown out of court for want of evidence, death or ill-health.
Comments
The SLCMP thinks the primary impediment to the noble cause of fighting corruption is the provision for the Attorney General alone to determine the justiciability of all anti-corruption cases. This significantly detracts from the independence of the ACC, its most crucial feature. While the Attorney General still has thirteen cases before him awaiting his decision on their justiciability, six of those cases are backlogs from 2001-2005. This exemplifies how the Attorney General singlehandedly can hold back the judicial process of anti-corruption cases. This provision is an outright discredit to the system, as one man determines which cases merit prosecution; it is especially troubling considering the Attorney General’s Office has conspicuously been under-staffed and under-resourced, with the additional tendency of being politically influenced.
Furthermore, the establishment of a three man committee to take the place of the Attorney General in determining justiciability has taken too long to take effect. With an independent committee determining justiciability, the ACC will be guaranteed of greater independence. I have said greater independence because even with the committee, the Director of Public Prosecution’s office will still be prosecuting anti-corruption cases. Thus, the state can influence to a large extent the outcome of anti-corruption cases because the prosecution can refuse to accumulate overwhelming evidence against an accused person the government wants to protect. The point I am making here is that while it is important for an independent body to determine justiciability, it is even more important for the Anti-Corruption Commission to independently prosecute their own cases in the name of the Republic of Sierra Leone.
Six years after it began, the ACC seems to be doing the same things that have continued to fail to hit the heart of corruption hard enough in Sierra Leone. It is still characterized by myriad of investigations and few prosecutions, fewer investigations and no hearings in the provinces, while the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy that should serve as a catalyst for corruption prevention remains silent. I am stating these issues now because the Commission has had a new leader since October 2005. When he took over, the hopes and expectations of Sierra Leoneans that the fight against corruption will be bolstered further were rekindled. Eight months is ample enough to elicit results, or at least show signs and structures of corruption eradication. However, this has not been the case and instead, the status quo continue to exist, with virtually no significant changes from the policies of the previous Commissioner. Nevertheless, while the SLCMP believes in the capacity of the new Commissioner, we also want to urge the ACC to remember that its success lays largely with the authority of its head.