The author of this article, a South Sudanese journalist, makes several specific suggestions for how South Sudan could better combat corruption. These include granting new powers to anti-corruption officials as well as broader accountability measures and transparency.
Ahead of secession in 2011, many South Sudanese hoped for better governance, more inclusive and participatory government, and transparency about the use of public resources.
Post-secession, an advocacy campaign highlighted the prevalence of corruption in the government, which prompted President Salva Kiir to come out to accuse some key officials in government and in business of misappropriating public funds.
His announcement raised hopes in the public of the commitment of his administration to combat corruption. This was later followed by widespread media examinations of government decisions and expenditures.
To help the president combat the practice, the media mounted a campaign for the legislation of a strong media law with the hope for subsequent implementation of a right to information. This effort, although it received popular support from the public, failed to gain significant backing from key influential figures in the executive and in the parliament.
Had the media secured parliamentary and executive approval of the strong media law, the next step would have been applying the right to access information by bringing out publically information about public administration, corruption and misappropriation of funds.
Throughout this time I have held that good governance is not created solely by the government, but rather involves several stakeholders. I held that transparency and public inclusion will help ensure that well-intended government programs and policies do not stray from their intent. And to make governance participatory requires involving other stakeholders and keeping them informed.
With many people now seeking ways to address the roots of the current conflict, one of which was corruption, I am glad to join the discourse because it seems some people who previously did not see the need for this discourse are now increasingly ready to open up and hold frank discussions with members of the media.
They appear to understand that effects of corruption pose a serious development challenge. And indeed in the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by subverting formal processes.
Corruption in legislative bodies reduces accountability and fair representation in policymaking. Corruption in the judiciary undermines or suspends the rule of law. Corruption in public administration results in the unequal provision of services.
More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and officials are hired or promoted without regard to performance. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.
Corruption also increases the cost of business in the private sector through the price of illicit payments, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection.
Most importantly, corruption has been identified as one of the leading contributing factors to the current conflict. Political corruption is widespread in the institutions of government, representing a major detriment to the well-being of the citizens.
Political corruption means that government policies tend to benefit the givers and takers of the bribes, not the general public. Politicians have drafted laws that protect their interests as evidenced in the way the 2011 transitional constitution was drafted, placing excessive powers in the hand of the president.
Though the role of the Anti-Corruption Commission is commendable, the general impression is that no significant political will has been demonstrated by the leadership.
If an effective war on corruption is to be fought, it needs to involve prevention, detection and sanctions. In South Sudan, sanctioning corruption offenders remains a great challenge.
Efforts being made to detect corruption are at best half-hearted, more often virtually non-existent. And the lack of political will explains why nothing changed after President Kiir accused key figures of embezzling public funds, though it was hoped he would take immediate action with introduction of robust institutions capable of detection techniques.
It was also hoped that he would give significant attention to making social, business and bureaucratic environments corruption-hostile rather than corruption-friendly. This means that there must be well-funded comprehensive public education and enlightenment programs on the nature of corruption as well as the negative effects of corruption in the polity.
This is a job that the central and state ministries of information must undertake. This could take the form of well-tested public enlightenment techniques such as the use of handbills, public posters, print media adverts and radio and TV jingles. At the same time, the citizenry must be made aware of the stiff penalties that await those engaged in corrupt practices.
To this end, certain legal instruments must be put in place to enable unfettered corruption detection, arraignment and conviction to be facilitated. In this regard, appropriate legislation should be enacted along the following lines:
A law compelling all banks to report to appropriate authorities any deposits, transfers or withdrawals of funds in excess of a specified amount by any individual;
A law requiring tax in the form of capital gains tax to be levied against people who have come into large sums of money;
A law requiring land management institutions to require buyers or lease applicants to indicate legal sources of funds for the development or purchase of a land;
A law enabling anti-corruption officials to demand explanations for large acquisitions and expenditures beyond the legitimate incomes of public servants or private entrepreneurs;
A law requiring the mandatory public declaration of the assets of the immediate family of specified senior public officers on appointment and when leaving office;
In this regard, it is relevant to observe that our people can be very creative over asset declaration. Hence an elected or appointed official who intends to steal while in office could even declare having more assets than he has upon assumption of office, so as not to have a discrepancy after he leaves.
Usually, such a declaration is taken on its face value. No further attempt is made to ascertain that the official is actually worth the declared amount.
The author is a South Sudanese journalist.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj