Non-traditional approach needed in corruption fight
the implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the Government made a decision to adopt and establish a separate anti-corruption agency with core functions to investigate and expose cases of corruption in the public and private sectors. Metaphorically speaking, it is the quarterback in the fight against corruption. It has, however, to adapt to existing institutions, or to decide on some combination of both.
Every one of these options brings along with it a number of legal, policy, and resource factors that need to be carefully weighed.
Of equal importance is the need to ensure that there are clearly defined rules of engagement that will guide the interaction and collaboration between the various institutions involved in the fight against corruption because success of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission will depend on the mandates of other relevant entities involved in areas of policy-making, legislative change, law enforcement and prosecution, as well as the existence of internal anti-corruption bodies e.g., units within the police force.
Out of the many countries that have adopted the United Nations Convention Against Corruption strategy only Hong Kong and Singapore have been successful. One of the reasons for failure is the seeming disparity between prioritising short-term, directly visible targets that tackle the symptoms rather than the root cause of corruption, over deeper, more difficult, as well as time and resource intensive systemic reforms.
Zimbabwe should instead go for a well-thoughtout long-term vision reform strategy, one that will bring significant change, at the earliest, in the next and not in the present generation.
The independence of ZACC is imperative if it is going to be effective as this enables the institution to operate free from the pressure of influential elites or factions. Remember the Zimdef scandal.
The design of appropriate checks and balances and the fact that they are constantly scrutinised through various oversight mechanisms makes them effective.
Another way to enhance the autonomy of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission is to ensure that the selection and appointment of the executives of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission are a shared responsibility of several institutions. Security of tenure for officials of the agency and appropriate immunity against civil litigation are essential. For example, Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Agency officials are appointed by Parliament from a list of candidates provided by the President. A Selection Committee appointed by the Government then prepares the final list of candidates. To avoid manipulation by the government of the day, the Zimbabwean should establish multiple reporting lines for the agency. Multiplying the reporting lines of the Zimbabwe AntiCorruption Commission will enhance oversight by making the commission accountable to more than one authority. Indonesia’s Commission reports to the President, the National Assembly and the State Auditor.
Most Anti-Corruption Agencies have a multi pronged strategy that involve; investigation, prosecution, prevention, education and awareness as well as coordination.
The investigation function is central to the mandate of many Anti-Corruption Agencies. However, not all agencies are mandated to carry out investigations into alleged acts of corruption.
Ideally, the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission should initiate investigations into complaints received as well as on its own accord, regardless of whether a complaint has been lodged. In some cases, an investigation may also be sparked by a request from other institutions.
Education and awareness is crucial. The masses must know the extent of corruption, the impact it has on public service delivery, and how to monitor as well as report it, and the importance of holding their elected leaders and public servants more vigorously to account.
In keeping with this, the President said, “The goal of my Government is to build a new government on the crown of honesty, accountability and transparency”.
Transparency is the main ingredient needed to establish a minimal level of credibility for prevention purposes. Effectively tackling corruption necessitates more and more transparency. Robert Kennedy once said, “I don’t believe newspaper reporters can substitute for a district attorney, but a newspaper has a very valid investigative role. Newspaper reports on corruption in government, racketeering and organised crime conditions can be very helpful to your communities and the whole country”.
Open access to information provides a basis for Government accountability and raises the barriers against capricious, self-serving intervention. The solution to tackling corruption is more effective investigative journalism to uncover wrongdoing.
Apart from general education measures, the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission should also be in a position to develop, propose and, where appropriate, implement preventive measures, and/or to collaborate closely with other agencies that have a mandate to do so. Hong Kong has an extensive mandate in this area.
This is to examine the procedures of government departments and public bodies in order to facilitate the discovery of corrupt practices and to secure the revision of work methods and protocols that may be conducive to corrupt practices.
From the foregoing it is evident that for any effort in the fight against corruption to be effective, a systematic, comprehensive and long-term approach is needed. This means that the institutions charged with fighting corruption must be given adequate time and resources, to be successful.
Furthermore, no institution will be successful in fighting corruption without the existence of an enabling coherent governance framework.
President Mnangagwa clearly articulated this on September 17, 2016 when he said, “Government is working on a public sector corporate governance framework which is based in law to ensure that good corporate governance is practiced in our local authorities”.
A related area is also the capacity for research on corruption-related issues as well as knowledge management. The capacity to conduct research into public opinion on as well as trends and the nature of corruption is essential in order to devise effective strategies for combating corruption.
This includes the judiciary, police, audit institution, ombudsman, police, etc. Of particular importance is the relationship between the institutions charged with combating corruption and the prosecution and judiciary.
They are essential for corruption cases to be brought to court and tried. Thus, attention should be paid to strengthening the capacity of the prosecutors and the courts, if efforts to fight corruption are to succeed.
The United Nations Convention against corruption treats audit requirements as elements of prevention of corruption, in both the public sector and the private sector but specific elements of the Convention, such as the requirements to preserve the integrity of books, records and other financial documents make it clear that the functions of deterrence, detection, investigation and prosecution are also contemplated.
Therefore the role of the Audit Office in combating corruption should not to be underestimated. Regular audits prevent corruption and economic crimes by making them riskier and thus reduce opportunities for corruption.
Audits support anticorruption efforts because they verify information and identify weaknesses, malfeasance or other problems that insiders may be unable or unwilling to identify. They also identify strengths and weaknesses in administrative structures and procedures; report on their activities and consequently generate political pressure to act in response to problems identified.
The relationship between the Zimbabwe AntiCorruption Commission and the office of the attorney general is significant.
As a rule, there is no binding framework within civil or common-law countries as to who is to retain investigation and prosecution powers. Where the constitution prescribes that the prosecutor has sole oversight for all prosecutions, s/he is ordinarily empowered to intervene in all criminal proceedings initiated by any person or authority.
However, the question in many is whether the prosecutor enjoys sufficient independence to decide to bring a case to court. And that independence has to be effective. Very often, the weakness of the anti-corruption machinery becomes visible at the crossroads of investigation and prosecution by the judiciary and court proceedings. *Shakespeare Kesari Chigwerewe is a Resource
Scientist based in the USA. Feedback: skchigwerewe@gmail.com