The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) is seriously being criticized by the Sierra Leonean society as well as international organizations about its lame duck attitude in the fight to combat corruption in post-war Sierra Leone. In fact many people accuse it to be a toothless bull-dog considering the fact that since its establishment, it has to a large extent failed to robustly prosecute cases involving corrupt officials in our society. This article highlights some of the reasons why the Commission is yet to make the necessary impact in its fight against corruption and the consequences. It proffers recommendations that are worth considering if stakeholders are serious in making corruption history in Sierra Leone.
Established by an Act of Parliament in 2000, the ACC is charged with the sole responsibility to curb corruption in both public and private sectors in Sierra Leone. Since 2000, the Commission has found difficulty in efficiently carrying out the task of fighting corruption. Going through a chain of Commissioners, the ACC has achieved very little in eradicating corruption in the country. The mandate of the Commission is two fold: first, to enforce the law on corruption. It does this by investigating cases of corruption that comes to its notice, and takes suspects to court. Secondly, to take steps to prevent corruption. It does this by examining the practices and procedures in the public and private bodies in order to secure revision of procedures and practices that are prone or conducive to corrupt practices and by disseminating information on the evils of corrupt practices and enlisting public support against them. However, a closer look at the ACC Act itself and the procedure involve in prosecuting cases of corruption largely inhibit the crusade on wiping out this menace in our society.
The Act provides that all ACC cases after preliminary investigation should be sent to the Attorney-General’s office who will have to certify the findings of the Commission and determine whether the said case is worthy of prosecution or not. This has not only impeded the work of the ACC, but it has seriously damaged the independence of the Commission, taking into account the fact that the Attorney-General is also the Minister of Justice caught between both the executive and judicial arms of government. In a current matter being investigated by the ACC involving the former Minister of Transport, Dr. Prince Harding, the ACC has no mandate to charge the minister but have to seek the consent of the Attorney-General before the matter would be charged to court. The implication is that the work of the ACC is under the direct supervision of the Attorney-General’s office in terms of prosecuting corruption cases because he determines which cases are charged to court and which are not. This flaw in the ACC Act itself seriously undermines the work of the Commission as there is the possibility for the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to be selective in prosecuting corruption cases; targeting those out of favour with the status quo and ignoring those who wine and dine with them. Even when corruption cases have been successfully prosecuted and verdicts delivered, in most cases the culprits are junior officials. A pointer to this fact is among some of the convictions secured so far is a caterer of a hospital and an account officer of a library. When senior officials are involved in corrupt practices, only the minor crimes are exposed for prosecution.
The way and manner in which ACC cases are prosecuted in the courts do not leave much to be revered. The judiciary which is suppose to be the lead institution in championing the cause of fighting corruption is hardly mesmerized by ACC cases. Consequently,
ACC cases take too long in court before judgments are made. An example was in a case in the High Court that was presided over by Justice Hamilton involving a former Magistrate who was accused of corruption. That matter dragged on for over a year before the court acquitted and discharged him. In some cases, they are thrown out for want of evidence. Between 2006 and 2007, a total number of 27 corruption cases have so far been prosecuted in both Magistrate and High Courts. With 22 backlog cases from the previous year, one is tempted to acknowledge that these trial proceedings at any rate have exceeded their normal duration. In almost two years, the Commission is only prosecuting 27 cases some dating as far back as 2005.
The failure to robustly tackle the menace of corruption, the most destructive force responsible for our underdevelopment, has had severe consequences for the country. Aside from the country’s image being dented, it has succeeded in bringing about loss of trust and confidence in state institutions by both the citizens and the international community. This lackluster attitude on the path of government to vigorously prosecute corruption has seen DFID recommending that funding be stopped to the ACC after it discovered financial malpractices. Furthermore, the British Government is on the verge of withholding huge money meant for the consolidated fund for the payment of public servants in Sierra Leone.
Therefore, in order to unremittingly tackle this disease of corruption, government should unreservedly implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ( TRC) relating to curbing corruption. The TRC in its 2004 Report recommended among other things the disclosure of assets by ‘ powerful public position holders’ including members of cabinet, judges, parliamentarians, heads of parastatal and members of district and city councils, before and after assumption of office to enhance accountability and transparency. Most importantly, it recommended that the ACC be mandated to pursue its own prosecution in the name of the Republic of Sierra Leone. The latter recommendation if implemented will give the Commission the legal mandate to proceed with its own prosecution after preliminary investigations without having to forward findings to the Attorney-General; thus making it autonomous.
In addition, the courts should device ways to expeditiously dispense with cases from the ACC. They should, for example, allocate special days in specific courts, as it is the case for juveniles, for ACC cases to be heard. This move will not only help to fast-track the trial process but it will also help restore faith in the workings of the Commission by both locals and the outside world.
The SLCMP believes that corruption is an abuse of people’s human rights and should be treated in parallel with other human rights abuses such as the diminution of civil liberties.