By Umaru Fofana
Heard the saying “one step forward two steps backwards”? Or “the more things change the more they remain the same”? We stand the risk of proving true these sceptical sayings unless we stop in its track what is being planned.
I wonder how many of you know that there are plans to, possibly, rewrite but certainly amend a key provision of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act of 2008. As amended five years ago, the ACC Act and the Local Government Act of 2004 are two of the best pieces of legislation we have in Sierra Leone. If anything they should be amended and made tougher. Not to be watered down as plans are now under way to do with the former.
One of the best provisions of the ACC Act 2008 is the declaration of assets by all public officials. No doubt there are obvious challenges facing a full probe of those asset declarations – largely due to the lack of capacity by the commission to fully implement it which I will talk about later – but a great provision it is nevertheless.
As well as the ACC having the power to prosecute people suspected to be corrupt, a function that used to be carried out by the Attorney General even if he incomprehensibly still has the power to nullify prosecution of corruption cases, the number of corruption offences was increased to include illicit enrichment and unexplained wealth, among others. Great provisions which may come to hound those thieves in public offices who are busy stealing the nation's resources and building or buying themselves mansions and manses both in-country and abroad. We know their salaries. We can easily compare the cost of those riches to their wages while in public office and get the difference. That time may be delayed but not stopped.
As the current ACC Act stands, every public official is mandated to declare their assets every year and when they leave office. The proposed amendment seeks to water that down by amending subsection 1 and by extension subsection 2 of Section 119 of the ACC Act 2008 to read thus: “Every public officer shall within three months of becoming a public officer and while leaving office deposit with the Commission a sworn declaration of his income, assets and liabilities.”
Effectively the proposed amendment means that a public official will be required to declare their asset only twice – once when they so become and once on leaving office. What this does is kill the tracking mechanism which follows the asset acquisition of a public official. More often we are quick to think that corruption is confined to ministers and heads of Parastatals – who are appointed for five years or ten years maximum. It may well be true that the bulk of it takes place there because of the power they wield and the seamlessly shameless tendencies of some of them in view of how they got appointed into those offices in the first place.
However it is also correct to say that there are tens of thousands of other public officials in the civil service. They work there for decades and in a country where life expectancy is less than forty years, a good number of them die in office. To amend the ACC Act as proposed therefore means letting people die with stolen assets without being tracked let alone punished for doing so. What is more is that the proposed amendment is dated 28 February 2013 and very few people even know about it.
When I contacted the head of the ACC, Joseph Kamara, he said the proposed amendment did not originate from the commission. I then turned to the Attorney General because I remember that office was responsible for the amendment in 2008. Frank Kargbo said he did not propose it. He sounded not to know about its origin except to say that some MPs had mooted their desire to call for it. He seemed to not be really au fait with the detail of it. Upon investigations, I came to know that Parliament does not have its own draughtsmen. The Law Officers' department, under the Attorney General, does that. But that is for another day.
In my view the amendment of the ACC Act of 2008 as proposed is nothing short of providing cover for thieves in public office. Plain and simple. Steal and acquire wealth as much as you can. And by the time you turn 60 years when you are due to retire – unless you are in the military where the retirement age is 55 years – you will be too old for anyone to start investigating you and scolding you to cough up the stolen public wealth. Not least in country where there is so much age and sympathy attached to old age.
Take for example someone who, while they first held public office or declared their assets, did not own a company or shares therein. They later did and there was no asset renewal in that time for them to make an additional disclosure. And the interest of this company had conflicted with their public service. And such a thing was only spotted after the deed had been done or after they had retired. Would it not have been preferable if such had been detected earlier and the public official was told to disinvest in good time? I am probably naïve to think that conflict of interest is an offence in Sierra Leone. It may well be de jure, but de facto it does not seem to be. Otherwise who does not know about senior government officials whose companies carry out government contracts every day. In any case the proposed amendment to the ACC Act can only kill off what ever the rationale for section 119 was.
I would have thought ways of improving the ACC Act to make it tougher than it is should be being considered. For example making public those declared assets which to me seem more secretive than confidential. If these sworn assets were made public the public would be able to help the Commission in tracking the asset acquisition of such public officials. After all the Commission cannot be ubiquitous.
As things stand, the ACC, like I alluded to above, cannot adequately handle the asset declarations. And I know for sure than far less public officials – including ministers and parliamentarians – have annually declared than those who have not. The workers in the ACC department dealing with assets are insufficient. And the volume of forms is huge. Add to that the confidentiality nature of the forms then you know that not everybody can be allowed access to them.
But a possible solution to that, especially in a country where there is a huge gap between self interest and public interest – with the latter the weaker – outsourcing to a reputable (financial) institution in the country the handling of the declaration of assets could be looked into. CCTVs could be installed in any lace where such happens and those handling it swear to confidentiality. That is, if their content should continue being kept in secret.
The ACC Act is a watershed piece of legislation. The proposed amendment is a private member motion, meaning it is being championed by a Member of Parliament – Ibrahim Bundu of the governing All People's Congress party. Knowing how much party discipline there exists in the APC it is highly unlikely this is being done without the say-so of his party. As for the opposition SLPP party, they are probably ashamed of taking a contrary stand on the issue because, in the first place, when they were in power which was when the ACC Act was passed, they did not include the declaration of assets in it. But that was then. They can come out now and challenge this retrograde step. And civil society too must join in. if we do not get the fight against corruption right, the majority of us will get poorer as only those in power will get rich. Among other ramifications of that, politics will get nastier and deadlier than it already is because that will be the only means to survival.
© Politico 13/06/13
