Greed and Graft Grow in Sub-Saharan Africa

According to Transparency International’s recently released 2009 Global Corruption Barometer, corruption continues to wreak havoc on Sub-Saharan Africa’s governance record. Notably, of the 9 sub-Saharan countries examined in the report, Crossroads countries including Sierra Leone, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, and Zambia, numbered among the states most afflicted by petty bribery. In all of these countries, over 23% of respondents reported paying a bribe within the last year. Furthermore, in line with this finding, respondents in most of the countries named the civil service as one of the most corrupt sectors, with the majority labeling it the single most corrupt institution. On a slightly more positive note, in most of the Crossroads countries examined, citizens remain relatively confident in their governments’ anti-corruption efforts. In sub-Saharan Africa, 64% of respondents were satisfied with their governments’ anti-corruption programs. Unfortunately, as the New York Times reports, the political will to combat corruption in these countries is swiftly fading. In addition, the positive public perceptions pale in comparison to the generally bleak picture of rampant regional corruption painted by the report.

Of the Crossroads countries included in the survey, Sierra Leone and Uganda are in particularly dire straits. Alarmingly, 62% of respondents in Sierra Leone and 55% of respondents in Uganda reported paying a bribe in the last year. Along with Cameroon and Liberia, they were the only countries included in the survey to reach the 50% mark. These new findings, in combination with their rankings of 158 and 126, respectively, in Transparency International’s (TI) 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index, place Sierra Leone and Uganda among the most corrupt countries in the world. Their dismal performance in the recent Barometer report merits a closer examination of corruption in these two countries, along with the prospects for an amelioration of the problem in the future.

In Sierra Leone, pervasive corruption affects all levels and sectors of society. As the 2006 Countries at the Crossroads report explains, corruption largely drove the collapse of the state before war was launched against the Revolutionary United Front in 1991, and the lingering legacies of the extensive patronage networks and general mismanagement that plagued the country until the end of the war in 2002 continue to hamper reform efforts. Petty corruption remains unhindered due to extensive bureaucratic red tape, a phenomenon that illuminates the country’s poor performance in the Barometer’s bribery category. Furthermore, the report explains that as of 2006, state efforts were extremely lackluster, in part due to both the inability of the auditor general to filter her reports through the various government ministries and the failure of the attorney general to prosecute cases reported by the Anti-Corruption Commission. In 2007, the problem continued unchecked. According to a report commissioned by the president, a lack of oversight mechanisms and a general culture of corruption in government ministries enabled thousands of dollars to be diverted from their intended recipients.

 Despite all of this, however, TI’s Barometer reported that 64% of respondents in Sierra Leone considered their government’s efforts in the fight against corruption be effective. Although an alarmingly high prevalence of petty bribery is reported in the Barometer, out of all of the Sub-Saharan African countries included in the survey, Sierra Leone’s citizens were the most content with their government’s performance in this area. This is most likely due to the initial efforts that President Ernest Koroma, who came to office after winning the democratic election run-off in September 2007, has made to develop a comprehensive approach to the daunting issue. In 2007, Koroma made battling corruption his top priority and immediately moved to examine the roots of the corruption problem by commissioning the report noted above. Furthermore, in September of last year, Komora enacted an anti-corruption law. The law moves to address high-level corruption by requiring all public officials to declare their assets and broadening the Anti-Corruption Commission’s powers to eradicate graft and protect whistle-blowers. Since the law was passed, the Commission has ramped up its investigations into graft allegations. As is shown by the high approval rating reported by TI, Komora’s accomplishments in the fight against corruption are noteworthy. Nevertheless, the entrenched nature of bribery and thievery in the public sector, along with the presence of other complications created by both the legacies of the civil war and the current economic crisis, will make it extremely difficult for Komora to achieve substantial progress on the issue.

While corruption is not quite as endemic in Uganda, which has somewhat more stable institutions, it is still an onerous governance problem. In the 2009 Barometer, Ugandan respondents named the judiciary as the most corrupt institution, with the civil service coming in at a close second. As the 2006 Countries at the Crossroads report on Uganda argues, one of the main reasons that the environment for corruption remains favorable is that President Yoweri Museveni, who has ruled the country for over 20 years, has never made any dedicated effort to curb corruption within the public sector. Over the course of his reign, he has shown great reluctance to prosecute government officials accused of corruption and has even directly thwarted the efforts of the inspector-general of government, Uganda’s most powerful anti-corruption agency. Furthermore, the 2008 Freedom in the World report added that Uganda lacked the resources to enforce the legislative measures that exist to combat corruption. As a result of these factors, the corruption problem worsened over the past few years, as evidenced by both the country’s slip in TI’s Corruption Perception Index and the results of a Ugandan Bureau of Statistics Survey.

Recently, however, Museveni’s rhetoric has been teeming with declarations of war against corruption. Most notably, on his June 3 State of the Nation Address, Museveni claimed that the war against corruption was the only war remaining in the country, stating that his government has “zero tolerance for corruption.” In addition, the government has made some new efforts to uproot corruption. For example, in May, the Ugandan parliament passed an Anti-Corruption bill that addresses public sector corruption by expanding the investigative powers of the Inspector General and creating punishments for public officials who fail to explain the source of their wealth. In addition, the parliament tabled a Whistleblower’s Bill.  These developments are potentially promising, but the same lack of resources that has always debilitated anti-corruption efforts will remain. Furthermore, if Museveni’s past approach towards corruption is any indication of his future stance towards the issue, the chances that corruption will be aggressively tackled while he remains at the helm of government are slim.

In both Sierra Leone and Uganda, corruption constitutes a fundamental, pernicious governance concern. Unfortunately, neither country has extremely auspicious prospects of stamping out the problem in the short term. While Sierra Leone’s president may have the will to address the issue, the existence of sizeable constraints – notably a severe lack of resources – will seriously complicate his efforts.  In Uganda, a lack of presidential will, and to a lesser extent resource shortages, could stand to impede the country’s war against corruption. Nevertheless, hope for the future is not lost. While the current forecast may be dreary, the recent adoption of new legislative measures in both countries could pave the way for a more effective approach to the issue under more amenable future circumstances.

Photo Credit: Flickr user M*rten

Comments

[Georg Neumann]

Dear Morten,

thank you very much for this very thorough analysis of the context of the Sub-Saharan countries included in the Barometer!

Indeed, it takes time until anti-corruption legislation can show results on the life of the people, suffering the most from the day-to-day bribery. However, as the Ugandan example shows, independent, well-resourced institutions, and effective complaint mechanisms, need to be put in place to make these efforts sustainable and reduce the influence of political will on the state of corruption.
Best, Georg