Media Editors and Civil Society Consultation on Anti Corruption Bill, 2011
When the Anti Corruption boss arrived at AMDISS just before 2pm to inaugurate the public consultation with an address to the media and civil society organisations, as usual there were a few guests in attendance; no more than one or two at start, and Dr. Riak insisted on starting on time, even with only one guest in attendance! And she was dead serious about it. South Sudanese have not shaken off old Sudan habits of turning up late for any meeting, and this consultation was no exception either.
When it finally kicked off with the address from the Anti Corruption boss at 14:10, she elaborated and outlined the public mandate of anti corruption commission, and hastened to underline public expectations and perceptions about the commission in fighting corruption and/or preventing it.
What are our rights as citizens, and what are our obligations in the fight against corruption, and how is corruption perceived in South Sudanese society? The anti corruption boss explored the answers to these queries and cited a numbe of surveys the commission has undertaken to inform its strategy and policy to combat and prevent corruption. This is further elaborated in the Commission’s 4-year Action Plan report for 2010 – 2014, and the annual report for 2010.
“People listen to the media; radio, TV, newspapers, etc. and they also talk about what’s said by TV, radio and newspapers”, Riak observed. It’s therefore no coincidence that the media is in a strong position to influence perceptions and disseminate information to the public, including on corruption, and she appealed to the media to join in the struggle to fight and prevent corruption in South Sudanese society at all levels. Before the Transitional constitution came into force, the preceding legal framework for anti corruption work only allowed SSACC to investigate but not prosecute corruption cases. The specific cases of former two Ministers of Finance and Economic Planning in the Government of South Sudan were cited by the anti corruption commission as results of its investigations which did not culminate in prosecution for the reasons that SAAC did not have prosecutory powers which were the domain of the police and the judiciary. This is set to change with the new Anti Corruption Bill, now in its 6th version, which derived from the Transitional Constitution of RSS, 2011 giving the commission unprecedented prosecutory powers.
The SSACC boss acknowledged that overall, there is a broad consensus for supporting the commission’s mandate and work to fight corruption and prevent it, that the very existence of the institution and its establishment is indicative of that support, not withstanding that fighting and preventing corruption has been slow in coming, stressing that the aim of SSACC is not only to punish corruption but also to prevent it and most importantly recover that which belongs to the public from those who steal public resources for personal benefit.
Commissioner Advocate John Saberio, argued that in order for prosecution of corruption offense to have a basis, such offences must be clearly defined in law, and drew a distinction between criminal and corruption offences under the law. He cited the example of bribery as a criminal act, one which in a court of law requires proof or evidence that the act actually occurred and was committed by a known party to the offence, and such proof would further require witness. More importantly, different set of legal principles would apply to prosecution of corruption offences than those applicable to prosecuting criminal actions.
In the proposed Anti corruption Bill, 2011, there are provisions for principles of declaration of wealth and property which apply to leaders in Government and public institutions as well as in private institutions, and provisions for assets tracing and recovery covering both movable and immovable assets. The commission would also assume prosecutory powers that are often exercised only by the Prosecutor General, and powers such as those exercised by the police, detention of passports and attachment of property. The main categories of corruption offences in the provisions of the bill broadly cover bribery, abuse of power, life style (living above one’s income, such as owning three hummers cars by one person with no history of possession of wealth), and failure to prevent corruption.
The failure to prevent corruption is broadly interpreted to mean not having in place a system to prevent corruption, and this is deemed to be an offence, with implications not just for public institutions but also for private organisations and individuals failing to prevent corruption as Commissioner Saberio explained.
Admittedly, the anti corruption bill, 2011, will most likely come up against opposition by powerful people in authority and government, who benefit from corrupt practices, and the media needs to ensure that public awareness is raised about the bill to serve the public interest. And with real or perceived high levels of corruption in South Sudan, the claim is made that a high percentage of those in power lack understanding of the rule of law and needed time to change their ways of going about the business of government to serve the public interest. This is where the real challenge lay, and calls upon a joined up approach between SSACC, the media, civil society and citizens to rally strong public support to bring the anti corruption bill into fruition against any opposition from powerful vested interests inside or outside Government.
Hakim Dario Moi
Executive Director
AMDISS
About Post Author
