Blog

Ellen’s Missed Opportunities: Fighting Corruption to Dead End – Mahamed Boakai

Her inaugural speech in January 2006 lighted the skies in Liberia and other parts of the world. The sound bite in that speech was the promise to fight corruption in government. Before Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was elected, Liberians have already identified corruption as the corrosive that mutilated the fabrics of their society. So when the newly elected President declared corruption as ‘public enemy #1’ there was a thunderous applause because these words were coming from lips that Liberians trusted to combat corruption given her advocacies over the years.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s presidency started with decency – a solid internal support and an overwhelming international goodwill. There were looming promises of structural alignments for credible and independent governance institutions to foster development agenda and reverse abject poverty. Citizens and foreign partners alike hailed the twilight in infrastructural development and institutional overhaul that dominated the first year of President Sirleaf’s administration. Her allowance to free press and human rights was spectacular. These achievements were not extra but were unprecedented in a land that had no institutional framework for development in its 150 some more years of statehood.

This period of interregnum was soon interrupted by elements within. President Sirleaf came to the presidency on a trajectory of support from mixed personalities. Dominant character amongst these strange political bedfellows was the lack of probity. Cabinet members and confidants of the President began to knife the nation’s resources as was done in previous administrations. Companies began to mushroom and government contracts began to be awarded to those closest to Her Excellency. To the utmost surprise of many, the President’s attention and anger was drawn in another direction, not at those who were named in corruption. The humble presidency was once more getting back to superiority and the corridor of power became lined up with old mantra – corruption.

Instead of at least removing those accused of pillaging state treasury, President Sirleaf began repositioning corrupt guards with the excuse that there were no evidence for action. We saw the regrowth of the patronage tree in President Sirleaf and the ever expanding connections of sycophants. The steel in the once heralded ‘iron lady’ has rusted and in many instances she has been heard defending her cronies and succumbing to the popular will of miscreants.

President Sirleaf lacks a clear strategy to fight corruption and she refused to make any efforts in curtailing the evil she promised to defeat. She has the power to considerably reduce corruption but she has chosen to reward with state coffers those who kiss her boots. She appointed weaklings to corruption-fighting institutions and continues to reward bad performance with high promotions and fabulous allowances to under performers. Ellen may have missed the opportunity to fight corruption to the dead end.

LACC’s Call for Assets Declaration: A Mockery of Combating Corruption – Mahamed Boakai

 Africa’s policy architects are yet to stop disappointing their citizens; and this is even worse for Liberia, the continent’s oldest republic. With less than two weeks in country for my vacation I am already confused about what to comment on as just about everything in our society is sickening. Notwithstanding the competing priorities, a particular issue in my area of expertise caught my attention – assets declaration. I will not have peace of mind if I did not express my disappointment and share my opinion on this very important aspect of clean governance.

Assets declaration regime is a cardinal tool for combating corruption. It can be effective as a corruption prevention tool, and equally essential as an investigative tool. Assets declaration system can be worthless and counterproductive when wrongly instituted. From readings into institutionalization of assets declaration regime in Liberia, I see  – the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) flirting on the thin line between an effective assets declaration system and a mockery of the process. It is either that LACC misconstrued the entire process from its inception or that the Liberian people are being taken for another ride.

I do not want to be rudimentary here but let me briefly define the two words of this catchy phrase: assets connote net worth while declaration refers to a formal announcement. Put in context, assets declaration is the formal announcement of one’s net worth. And in the case of combating corruption, assets declaration regime calls for public officials (elected and appointed) to make known their net worth. This process becomes a tool to prevent corruption when the net worth is publicly revealed; and an investigative tool to justify/verify any incremental difference in net worth as time progresses.

Some Best Practices in Asset Declaration

Asset declaration may vary in structure and composition from country to country but the overriding function of any asset declaration is to compliment anticorruption programs. The underlining principles of asset declaration include but are not limited to:

• helping to curtail unlawful enrichment
• avoid conflict of interest
• prevent abuse and reinforce shared values
• promote integrity and transparency

Every country should identify country-specific problems that its government aims to resolve with an asset declaration system. A country should hold comprehensive and inclusive policy debates before the introduction or major modification of public officials’ declarations, in order to define the purposes it aims to achieve. Every asset declaration should seek to:

• increase transparency and trust of citizens in public administration, by disclosing information about assets of politicians and civil servants to show they have nothing to hide;
• help heads of public institutions prevent conflicts of interest among their employees and to resolve such situations when they arise, in order to promote integrity within their institutions;
• Monitor wealth variations of individual politicians and civil servants, in order to dissuade them from misconduct and protect them from false accusations, and to help clarify the full scope of illicit enrichment or other illegal activity by providing additional evidence.

It is necessary to consider both preconditions and opportunities in determining an optimal workable framework in terms of legal, financial, personnel and other conditions for a successful declaration system. The preconditions include supportive actors (responsible managers, honest civil servants and active media) and already existing legal frameworks (tax collection systems, other public registers and effective law enforcement).  It should also consider major limitations such as shortage of public funds, lack of political will to fight corruption and poor discipline in public administration (which is largely the case in Liberia).

It is important to mention that asset declaration is only one of many tools that can help prevent corruption. It cannot independently prevent, especially in Liberia where our democracy is relatively new, anticorruption is in its infant stage, tax systems not mature and law enforcement a challenge. However, a well-designed and operational system of asset declarations can be an important element in the overall anticorruption and integrity system of our country.

Legal framework for asset declarations

There is no one particular or best legal solution for public officials’ declarations. It is best practice to consider our legal traditions and previous experience (which I know it is a challenge), and assess current problems in order to determine which legal approach is more likely to generate support among politicians, public officials and the broader public. Liberia’s choice of the particular legal act should be made considering our national context. Principles of asset disclosure can be embedded in another law, e.g. on civil service, conflict of interest rules of the parliament, etc.; or, there can be a special law on asset declarations – which I believe is what LACC is grappling with.

If asset declaration law is to be embedded into another legal instrument, it is important to ensure that key principles are established in a primary law because:

• the path leading to adoption of primary legislation may provide for a public debate to build consensus and to ensure social acceptance of a legal requirement of disclosure;
• primary law can limit individual privacy rights of citizens in their capacity as public officials

I am not sure any broader legal frameworks, e.g. tax and criminal law, were considered before designing Liberia’s asset declaration systems.

Approaches to the implementation of asset declaration

Recognizing that various categories of public officials indeed with different levels of responsibility and power or potential to go into conflicts of interest and corruption, it is necessary to consider specializing regulations of asset declarations for different categories and branches of public officials.

• Interests and assets of elected officials, e.g. Representatives, Senators, Vice-President and President, should be subject to a separate asset declarations that are made available to the wider public; they should take due account of their elected status and the enforceability of sanctions against them.
• Senior executive officials, including ministers and other political appointees – as well as the highest levels of the

Prevention of conflict of interest among the employees of public institutions is the responsibility of the managers, e.g. ministers and heads of agencies. Therefore each public institution can have its internal systems based on common principles, which may or may not include a requirement for middle- and low-level officials to declare assets. Even where middle and lower ranks of civil servants do not submit declarations, a control mechanism of some sort should be in place.

Persons obliged to declare assets

There is no uniform standard regarding what circle of public officials should be obligated to submit declarations. This is the reason why LACC needed a nationwide PALAVA Hut discussions to carefully debate and weigh the costs and benefits related to broader or narrower coverage. We have to keep in mind that the broader the coverage, the more burdensome and costly; particularly for a Liberia where there have been no functional systems in place. There is no convincing evidence that covering the broadest possible circle necessarily leads to more effective prevention of corruption.

• As said above, due attention should be paid in setting obligations separately in accordance with the level and responsibilities of officials. While the obligations of lawmakers and senior officials should be relatively heavy, those of ordinary, and especially middle- and low-level officials, can be light.
• Obligation to disclose assets should be linked to the extent of decision-making authority and managerial powers of officials, and the related risks of conflict of interest and abuses of office. This obligation should also cover private entities and individuals empowered to provide public services through contracts.
• It should be recognized that corrupt officials often hide their assets under the names of their relatives, their spouses and other individuals. Therefore, it should be possible to monitor the wealth not only of a public official, but that of close relatives and household members. This can be achieved through the public officials’ declarations system or through the tax system, or by law enforcement authorities. However, with relatives and household members, a respect for the privacy of individuals must be considered.

Information to be declared

The scope of information to be declared depends on the purpose of declarations. Conflict of interest control requires information about interests that have the potential to influence the discharge of official duties, rather than a necessarily all-encompassing picture of all income, assets, outside business and other activities. On the other hand, proper wealth monitoring is possible only when the declared information truthfully reflects all of the substantial income and assets, and fluctuations thereof.

Collection of asset declarations

Many factors can be taken into consideration in determining the schedule of submission of declarations: the purpose of declarations, available resources, the scope of covered officials, and the date when information required in the statement becomes available, etc. In general, care should be taken to ensure that declared information is updated as often as reasonably needed to keep data relevant for the fulfillment of the stated purpose of declaration system.

In systems where awareness of the purpose and use of declarations is not spread throughout the state apparatus, a centralized collection system is likely to be more favorable for developing a uniform handling of all declarations and professional skills in the use of disclosed data. Decentralized systems facilitate monitoring by superior officials/bodies of declarants, provided internal control and awareness of managerial duties to prevent corruption are well internalized.

Verifications of asset declarations

Most asset declaration systems would benefit from some kind of verification procedure, particularly if the number of officials covered and the level of perceived corruption are high whereas trust in the government is low and civil society weak. In particular, some verification is recommended in order to maintain the integrity of information in the system (e.g. to rule out accumulation of systematically false data) or to address public concerns about the lifestyles of certain public officials as it relates to what is declared.

No matter the sincerity of a declarations system, a vibrant civil society, and independent media and periodic free and fair electoral process is required to maintain public confidence in the accountability of administration.

Sanctions needed to enforce asset declarations regimes

Legal sanctions are not a necessary element of all declarations systems; where public disclosure is ensured, active media and civil society and their reactions can be sufficiently disciplining factors. Meantime, where legal sanctions are actually used, the publicity of the sanction applied in a particular case can itself be considered a dissuasive measure. Information about the application of such sanctions should therefore be publicly disclosed as well.

Sanctions provide an important tool to promote disciplined compliance with the requirements of declaration systems, especially when such systems cover a large range of public officials. Sanctions for failing to comply with declaration rules or late or incomplete declarations normally involve various administrative or disciplinary measures. Criminal sanctions are not common in relation to asset declaration systems: to be in a conflict of interest is not a crime per se, but may lead to crimes; besides, criminal sanctions require stronger evidence than administrative sanctions. However, they can in principle be applicable against provision of false information. Sanctions for provision of false information require a reliable verification mechanism.

Information disclosure to the general public and other public institutions

It is important to strike a balance between public disclosure and protection of privacy; I think this is where LACC found hide its inadequacies. This is one reason for a national debate involving all stakeholders. There are strong reasons for disclosing, data of political officials, such as lawmakers, Vice President and the President. Politicians should be prepared to provide explanations regarding the disclosed information, if there are any serious concerns raised in the media or by civil society. Concerning the lower-level public officials, the right degree of public disclosure should be determined on the basis of a careful weighing of various considerations, such as domestic traditions, perceptions of corruption, possible safety concerns and other dangers.

In order to increase the positive effects of declarations systems, the declared data should be available to investigators for detecting cases of possible criminal offences. Where privacy concerns become a reason for denying all private information to the immediate superiors of public officials, the use of declarations to monitor conflicts of interest should be considered in perusing relevant data.

Evaluation of asset declaration system

Asset declaration by public officials should be opened to public scrutiny. Declarants should make use of the media to make known their net worth. There is very little or immaterial justification for withholding information regarding net worth of public servants from the public. Mere pronouncement of names of people who have declared their assets is not only insufficient, but inconsequential and a mockery to the fight against corruption in Liberia.

This is solely the author’s opinion; it does not in anyway represent any of his clients. He can be reached at medaskia@yahoo.com