Since the concurrent assent to the Anti-Corruption Bill 2008 and the declaration of assets and liabilities to the Commissioner of the Anti-corruption Commission (ACC) by the president, Ernest Bai Koroma, on Monday 1st [i] over the years-an indictment on our body polity. Although the declaration of assets and liabilities by public officials is not a maiden phenomenon as public authorities are mandated to declare such for Parliamentary vetting, nonetheless, the President is going on record as the first to have done so to the Anti-Corruption Commission- a no mean electoral accomplishment; albeit almost a year after he made the pronouncement. September instant, it has been public discussion that a new era has dawn in the fight against corruption-a vicious enemy of our society. This public discussion is borne out of the fact that the preponderance of corrupt practices by public functionaries in our country is widely acknowledged as a principal factor for the socio-economic decay, poverty and instability in Sierra Leone
The Anti-Corruption Act 2008 is modern and unique in Africa particularly in the sub-region in many respects as it is in tandem with an imperative recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued in 2005, and international standards such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which Sierra Leone has ratified, and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption and Related Offences. The Act mandates all public officers to declare their assets and liabilities to the ACC “…thereafter not later than 31st March in each succeeding year that he is a public officer, he shall deposit further declarations of his income, assets and liabilities and also while leaving office”; grants prosecutorial power to the commission; increases the number of corrupt offences; protect whistle blowers and informants of corrupt practices and fosters international cooperation in the fight against corruption. The President’s actions definitely exudes accountable leadership and, to an extent, a translation of his rhetoric of “zero tolerance” on corruption to reality.
However, the public should not be hoodwinked into believing that with asset declaration now in vogue, corruption is certainly going to be a relic; that a rejuvenated specialized statutory institution that has the expertise and wherewithal to checkmate the excesses of public functionaries who handle public resources, the fight against this scourge is a battle that has already been won. The disillusionment and despondency of many Sierra Leonean is premised on the fact that the secrecy and confidentiality which surrounds the declaration of assets by public officials undermines the very essence of public probity – a cornerstone in the fight against this menace. In addition, the lack of express procedure regarding re-appointment of Commissioners after the end of the first five-year term is a cause of concern; as it undermines integrity, impartiality and independence thereby unwittingly providing succour for those who thrive on corruption. It is what this piece will seek to examine.
As stated earlier, it is a laudable achievement for the President to declare his assets and liabilities to the ACC; a novelty in the country’s political history since the enactment of the Anti-Corruption Act 2000. However, the euphoria that accompanied the news of the President having declared his assets is rapidly dissipating. The disturbing reality about the President’s asset declaration is the secrecy and confidentiality that surrounded the entire process. It was done in a sealed envelop and bequeathed to the Commissioner of the ACC to the exclusion of the general public pursuant to Sec 119 (13) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2008 which provides that “subject to this Act, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Directors and other persons having an official duty under this Act shall deal with all documents and information and all other matters relating to declaration x under this Pact, as secret and confidential,…” That practice has engendered discussion as to the relevance of declaration of assets by public officials if the public is not informed about what a public officer may have declared in the first place. That aside, the ACC by keeping discreet the asset declaration process contravenes Sec 120 (2) of the ACC Act which states that “where upon an examination under Sub Sec (1), the Commission is satisfied that a declaration has been fully made, it shall publish or cause to be published a certificate in the gazette in the form prescribed by the Commission”.
It is important to note that a greater percentage of the population considered the prevalence of corrupt practices by public officials as a major stumbling block in the establishment of an effective and modern state in Sierra Leone. It is against this backdrop that people clamour for asset declaration- to ensure that public officials live within the limits of what they lawfully acquire; thus the essence of asset declaration. Although the ACC may have the technical expertise to detect false declaration, pursuant to Sec. 120 (1) of the said Act which state that “the Commission shall examine every declaration furnished to it and may request from the declarant any information or explanation relevant to a declaration made by him, which in his opinion, would assist it in it examination”, however, its task of unearthing deceitful declarations is likely to be quicker, effective and relatively easier with the public knowledge pursuant to sec 121 (1)(b) which provides “after a certificate has been published in the Gazette under section 121 any person makes a written complaint to the Commission in relation to the certificate, the commission, after consideration of the complaint, may decide that the complaint should be investigated” and by stretch enhancing public probity. In the instant case, what the President declared, in his own words, is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars; not withstanding the fact that his pay-package is less than two thousand dollars a month. Also worthy of note is that unlike his Liberian counterpart who declared her assets publicly immediately she ascended the presidency, our President declared his in secret to the ACC Commissioner, almost a year into his term of office. What assets were declared and when were they acquired can be anybody’s guess.
Also, like the Commissioners of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, the independence of the Commissioners of the ACC is permeable by the lack of express procedure regarding their re-appointment after the end of the first five-year term. The Act provides in sec. 4(1) that “The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years only”. The Commissioners shall be appointed by the President subject to approval of Parliament and can be remove from office by the President subject to a recommendation from a tribunal appointed by the President; and if such removal has been approved by a two-third majority in Parliament. In actuality, while the removal of the Commissioners warrants, beside the recommendation of the tribunal, a two-third majority in Parliament, the said Act is conspicuously quiet about re-appointment for another term of office; it is solely at the discretion of the President. The uneasiness that beclouds such an unlimited exercise of authority is the likelihood of compromise on the part of the Commissioner; they may be under latent pressure during their first term in office. That is, if the re-appointment of the Commissioner is the unfettered prerogative of the President, and if a Commissioner wants to retain his or her job, there is the possibility of him or her compromising “integrity, impartiality and independence” in the execution of his or her duty. In simple terms, express procedure regarding re-appointment is the cornerstone of independence, and that such independence could be threatened not by interference, in some instances, but also by a Commissioner being influenced consciously or unconsciously, by his or her hopes and fears about possible marginalization by the President in re-appointing him or her. Like in the case of contract judges, a shrewd chief executive will be more predisposed to re-appoint Commissioners who would be inclined to cover up his amass of ill-gotten wealth whilst in office.
Conclusively, laudable though the enactment of the improved Anti-Corruption Act 2008 and the subsequent declaration of the President’s asset might be, the existence of the two sections discussed above paints a gloomy prospect in the effective fight against corruption. However sophisticated the Commission’s information gathering mechanism may be, it still has to rely heavily on the public and particularly the media for leads to abuse of public offices and ill-gotten enrichment by public officials. The public though can not supply this information when it is not privy to the public official’s asset. Similarly, the Commissioners’ lack of security of tenure undermines the integrity, independence and impartiality- all of which necessary ethos of the Commissioner’s office, especially where he is required to look into the dealings of the President. In such cases, the African adage which goes that “one can not bite the finger that feeds you” naturally applies. The fight against corruption in a country that is still grappling with the dastardly effects of conflict deserves all seriousness. This is because it is immoral, unjust and repugnant to the very ideals of humanity enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it undermines development which is an inalienable human right. If this undesirable phenomenon is to be eliminated from our society, then it imperative that all normative flaws in the Anti-Corruption Act 2008 be corrected.
[i] Fredrick Konteh, Abdulai Jalloh and Andrew Allieu, Governance and Corruption Study 2002 Conflict Management and Development Associates, Freetown 2002 p.30