Corruption is one of the causes of all ugly happenings in Sierra Leone. It was the primary cause of the war, largely sustained it and continues to stagnate post- conflict development endeavors. This is evident in the facts that Sierra Leone failed to qualify for the G8 debt cancellation initiative in 2005 and still remains to be at the bottom of the UNDP Human Development Index. The Transparency International Report on corruption ranked Sierra Leone 126 out of 159 countries surveyed globally. By these indications, the need to combat corruption as a faux pas in our history and as an impediment for attaining post-conflict development cannot be over emphasized.
Pursuant to the Anti Corruption Act 2000, the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) was established with the mandate to monitor the performance of service delivery and demand accountability from our public functionaries. This initiative was to serve as a linchpin to the post-conflict reconstruction process and lasting catalyst of good governance.
Since the inception of the ACC, many corruption cases have been investigated and some prosecuted. This piece will therefore assess the work of the ACC from July 2000 to December 2005. The piece will in the end make recommendations that will help fight corruption with more prompt and eager readiness in Sierra Leone.
Investigation
Since July 2000, the ACC has investigated a total of five hundred and fifty one cases. These investigations have included almost all public functionaries. However, the ACC investigations have dominantly been concentrated in the Western Area as its operations over the years been seemingly very centralized. In addition, most of these investigations were reactive, meaning they were prompted by public
complaints and not actually initiated by the ACC. As a matter of fact, from a total of twenty investigations currently held in the Hot-spots ministries, only one is proactive. Similarly, only two out of seven investigations conducted in the non-Hotspots ministries are proactive. Hot-spot ministries have been identified as those ministries with institutional risks for corruption. This is because there are indications that some of the systems and procedures in these ministries are not tight enough and that they allow corrupt practices to develop and flourish easily.
Prosecution
With regards prosecution, out of the five hundred and fifty one cases investigated by the ACC so far, only fifty one of them have been charged to court. Thirty seven of these cases have been charged to the High Court and fourteen to the Magistrate Courts. No Anti-corruption case has been tried in the provincial courts. To date, the ACC cannot bypass the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, as the latter still remains to be the ultimate authority to decide whether a case should be prosecuted. At the moment, there are nine cases with the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for opinion. In the same vein, four cases are with the prosecution committee for opinion. The ACC, up to this period does not have the powers to determine the justiciability or the charge-worthiness of a corruption matter.
Conviction
As already mentioned, the ACC has charged fifty one cases to court since its inception: thirty seven to the High Court and fourteen to the Magistrate Courts. Out of the thirty seven cases in the High Court, nine cases are still on trials. There have been sixteen High Court convictions between July 2000 and 31st December 2005. However, accused persons in four of the High Court cases have been acquitted and discharged, one withdrawal due to death and two discharged due to ill health. Additionally, five cases in the High Court have been discharged for want of evidence, meaning the evidence adduced by the Prosecution was not credible enough to convict the accused persons.
There have been five convictions out of the fourteen cases that have come before the Magistrate Courts since July 2000. While seven of the cases are still before the Magistrates, two accused persons have been acquitted and discharged.
SLCMP’s Views
As a court monitoring programme, the SLCMP acknowledges that the ACC has scored some success in the years of its existence. However, the SLCMP also strongly thinks that the ACC needs to do more or perhaps even change strategy in order to hit the heart of corruption in post-conflict Sierra Leone. To this end, the SLCMP observed that the ACC has focused largely on litigation than prevention. Let me state it clearly that the SLCMP supports prosecution. Our only problem with it is that only few cases make it in courts and very few persons are convicted. The fact that individuals were not convicted does not always necessarily mean that they were not involved in corruption. Sometimes it may just happen that the prosecution’s evidence is not substantial enough to warrant conviction. Subsequently, the individual involved would have got away with what ever wealth he has amassed at the expense of the people of Sierra Leone. What we are trying to say in essence is that, the ACC should equally concentrate on prevention. It needs to mount a robust preventative campaign to avert corruption. Remember, ‘prevention is better than cure.’
The ACC also need to decentralize it activities. It has been concentrating too much of its activities in the Western Area. More investigations need to be done in provincial towns. As already mentioned, virtually no Anti Corruption case has been tried outside Freetown. These are all indicators that the ACC is a bit too centralized, much at the expense of effective service.
On the side of prosecution and conviction, the ACC has relatively made quite a number of successes. This is said in consideration of the fact that out of the 51 cases charged to court, there have been 21 convictions whilst 14 are awaiting judgments. On the other hand, it is very difficult to come to terms with the fact that 5 cases have been discharged in the High Court for ‘want of prosecution.’ Inexcusably, sufficient evidence should be garnered before any corruption case is prosecuted. This is therefore a pointer to the fact that the ACC needs to be doing its own independent prosecution in order to avoid the tendencies of state prosecutors not presenting overwhelming evidence so as to establish (by manipulations) the innocence of accused persons.
Finally but most importantly, the ACC should be permitted to pursue its own prosecution in the name of the Republic of Sierra Leone, as prosecution of corruption cases should be free from any scope of political interference. This will prevent the artificial bottle necks often created by the politically influenced, understaffed and under-resourced Attorney General’s office. When once these are achieved, the SLCMP strongly believes that the actualization of the objective of making corruption history in post-conflict Sierra Leone will be