Corruption has proven to be a major stumbling block in establishing an effective and modern state in Sierra Leone and constitutes a primary reason for Sierra Leone’s low development when compared to other states. However, an attempt to provide a single definition for corruption will encounter legal, criminological and political problems. Therefore, it is more effective to focus first on identifying the broad categories of corruption one is likely to encounter. Then one can then more easily spot commonalities and thus place other, more specific types of corruption into the larger categories. For example ‘’Grand’’ and ‘’Petty’’ corruption can be seen as two umbrella terms under which other forms of corruption can fall. Grand corruption is that type that pervades the highest levels of a national government, leading to a broad erosion of confidence in good governance, the rule of law, and economic stability. Petty corruption, on the other hand, can involve the exchange of very small amounts of money, the granting of minor favours by those seeking preferential treatment, or the employment of friends and relatives in minor positions. Using these broad terms, one can then identify specific forms of each category which are of serious concern to our community. Bribery, embezzlement, fraud, extortion, abuse of discretion, favouritism, nepotism, clientism, and improper political interest are all forms of corruption that fall under those two broad categories.
Though Sierra Leone ranks at the bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index, with a majority of its inhabitants living in squalor below the poverty line, the government has made significant gains over the years by shattering the taboo that barred the discussion of the types of corruption mentioned above, particularly in diplomatic circles and in government institutions. Today, corruption is topical and is openly discussed in various circles in society, even amongst those who are widely criticized as corrupt. The development of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS) and the promulgation of the Anti-Corruption Act in February 2000—which eventually led to the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC)—represented significant strides by government in the fight against this menace in Sierra Leone. In the years since, the ACC has won several battles in the fight against corruption, foremost of which is the enactment of the 2008 Anti-Corruption Act, which endows the ACC with the power to independently prosecute and punish corrupt persons. Sierra Leoneans now witness instances of public officials being charged for alleged corruption and some even being punished after a guilty verdict in a court of law. It thus appears clear that in the ongoing battle against corruption, the Anti- Corruption Commission has achieved significant victories since its inception.
Because corruption affects every facet of the country’s socio-economic, political and cultural landscape, there has naturally been a realisation that government alone cannot fight this battle. The need exists for a very powerful coalition comprised of interest groups and civil society organizations, which focuses on augmenting the work of the Anti-Corruption Commission.
This article explains the significance attached to having auxiliaries to the Anti-Corruption Commission work together to fight corruption in Sierra Leone. The work will require that civil society become deeply involved in this fight, as anti-corruption policies and practical measures are most likely to succeed if they enjoy the full support, participation and “ownership” of civil society. Specifically, these measures will be effective only if civil society plays a critical role in assessing the extent of corruption and its harmful effects.
Over the years, civil society has made tremendous efforts to raise awareness about corruption and the damaging effects it has on the welfare of Sierra Leoneans. Corruption not only distorts economic decision-making, but also deters investment, undermines competitiveness and weakens economic growth. It is a fact that economic, political, social and legal aspects of every country are linked together and corruption in any of these will impede development in them all. Without vigilance and countermeasures, corruption can occur anywhere. Although civil society has been engaged over the years in this fight, a strong and unified coalition of civil society organisations would better utilise this important sector. Specifically, it would allow prompt action on corruption related issues through press releases and publication of articles for the attention of both the Anti-Corruption Commission and the population, both nationally and internationally.
Systems in which individual offices, departments or agencies operate in isolation from one another tend to be more susceptible to corruption. The reason may be that in more coordinated systems, individual elements tend to communicate regularly with one another and carry out ‘’monitoring’’ both of activities and individuals. As civil society often assume the role of a watchdog for institutions in Sierra Leone, it is important that it works together to critically monitor the activities of government institutions. Take, for example, the Local Councils; the Local Government Act of 2004 requires that the councils display their incomes and expenditures for every month for public consumption. There are several important questions regarding implementation whose answers can likely only be supplied by a unified civil society. For instance, how many of the nineteen councils are disclosing this information monthly? Also, what actions have been taken by civil society when councils breach this arrangement? By having knowledge of these issues, civil society organizations can provoke the councils’ compliance with the law and thus promote transparency and accountability. A well coordinated, apolitical civil society coalition will not only unearth corrupt practises but will also act as a catalyst for finding and achieving solutions.
The critical goal of transparency is created by such elements as access to information and the activities of a healthy independent media. A free media is a powerful instrument, not only for exposing corruption and holding those responsible legally and politically accountable but also for educating the public and instilling high expectations for those in public office to act with integrity. A transparent, healthy and responsive media will coordinate with a meaningful civil society coalition to educate the public and instil high expectations of integrity, which will help the fight against corruption.
It is important to involve victims in any plan aimed at reducing corruption. Anti-corruption initiatives, and the interest of donors who support such efforts, tend to be more focused on those paid to fight corruption rather than those victimized by it. Victims are often socially marginalized individuals and groups who are harder to reach, but they have an important role to play, particularly in areas such as demonstrating the true nature and extent of the harm caused by corruption. As victims are often the strongest critics of anti-corruption efforts, securing their support and intervention can also assist greatly in establishing the credibility of the Anti-Corruption Commission and forcing public officials to be mindful of their activities.
In order to deter illicit enrichment, civil society organisations should work in concert with the Anti-Corruption Commission to increase transparency with respect to assets declaration and liabilities of public officials This can be done by ensuring that public officials not only declare their assets but that they do so with transparency. A well coordinated civil society coalition will assist the Anti-Corruption Commission in ensuring that disclosure with respect to associates and relatives of officials is achieved, as it is not unusual for officials to use family members as a conduit for ill-gotten gains.
The main purpose of whistleblower laws is to provide protection for those who in good faith report cases of maladministration, corruption and other illicit behaviour within their organizations. Experience shows, however, that the existence of a law alone is not enough to instil trust in would-be whistleblowers. Thus, protection should be accorded, as well as compensation should victimization or retaliation occur. It is critical that civil society organisations work to protect whistleblowers to prevent marginalisation of these individuals by superior authorities for reporting corrupt practises.
Yet another way by which civil society can be involved in the fight against corruption is to promote the idea of “integrity pacts” and maintain a presence at the signing of these agreements. These pacts should focus on specific contracts or transactions rather than ongoing institutional arrangements. Those involved in a specific process, such as bidding for a government contract, should be asked to enter into an integrity pact in which everyone involved agrees to observe specified standards of behaviour not to engage in corrupt practices. Such pacts can be of a contractual nature and could be linked to the contract, permitting litigation if one of the parties to it is found to be in breach. This strategy results in lower public costs, and the transparency of the process reassures participants and the public that neither the process nor the outcome has been tainted by corruption.
To ensure effective contract monitoring, it is important to maintain transparency throughout the entire bidding and contract execution process, as corruption can occur at any stage of contracting. An atmosphere should be created in which transparency is presumed and expected and in which confidentiality must be justified. Much of the most effective monitoring of the bidding process and the awarding of contracts should be done by competitors and civil society organizations, and all relevant documentation and information should be made available or, where feasible, posted for public consumption. Documentation should include all decisions regarding the bidding process, including the evaluation criteria utilized, the reasons for the decision, the identities of bidders and a list of unsuccessful bids. Similar standards should apply to the execution of the contract, with particular attention to any changes in performance criteria or remuneration provisions.
In conclusion, it is evident that responsibility for the fight against corruption should not lie only with the government through the Anti-Corruption Commission; it is a national priority that ought to include by civil society organisations who can better entrench it in the hearts and minds of Sierra Leoneans. If we are to raise this country from where it is today, at the nadir of the UNDP index, to greater heights, there should be concerted efforts on the part of all civil society organisations to effectively augment the activities of the Anti-Corruption Commission and foster a strong fight against this pandemic through several key strategies, including coalition-building, increased transparency, involvement of victims, and integrity pacts, among other initiatives discussed above.
