The challenge in fighting corruption is that graft is not a risky business

During the week, I watched the MP for Makindye East, Hon. John Ssimbwa, on NBS talking about a private member’s Bill initiative aimed at plugging the loopholes in the current anti-corruption legal framework. This is a welcome move by the legislators. Even though I have not yet read this Bill, I think the bits I have picked from the media and the MP’s TV interview have given me an understanding that the thrust of the Bill is the recovery of corruptly acquired property and/or assets after a culprit is convicted in a court of law. The purpose of writing, therefore, is not to discourage the MPs but to alert them that if my understanding of the objective of the Bill is fairly correct, then it will not necessarily achieve its underlying objective of making corruption a risky business. The probability of asset/property recovery will not make corruption unattractive because the Bill, if passed into law, will not necessarily increase the conviction rate unless the causes of low convictions are also addressed.

So what are the causes of low convictions? The main problem now is weak application of or complete lack of implementation or routine violation of existing laws, rules and regulations without any danger of sanctions whether legal or administrative. Impunity is the order of the day and being accused of corruption does not attract stigma from the public. Those accused of corruption are left with their wealth and thus may interfere with the investigation, prosecution and judicial processes ending up with a few convictions. Corruption occurs also in the Western developed countries but once detected, there are immediate legal processes against the suspect that incapacitate his/her capacity to interfere with investigations and prosecution and the judicial process because there, there are laws that empower seizure of property and assets of the suspects. If investigations and prosecution cannot be tampered or interfered with then the conviction rate could increase and the possibility of recovering corruptly acquired property and assets may be achieved after convictions. Here there is a loophole that needs to be plugged.

Alternatively, within the anti-corruption movement there are proposals that could be considered, for example, reversing the onus of proof, in corruption cases, from the accuser to the accused, so that if someone has disproportionate property compared with his/her known sources of income then the onus is put on that person to prove that the property/assets he/she owns were legally acquired. Although this may involve the suspension/violation of the civil liberties of that person as this also reverses the presumption of innocence, it may nevertheless be preferable to impose this extreme measure than invoking such alternatives as capital punishment which some people out of despair often propose. But considering that the level of systemic corruption in Uganda has reached very dangerous proportions, it could be reasonable to contemplate extreme measures as a remedy. So if the regime is serious about “zero tolerance” of corruption, which is doubtful, then it should take up this back-bench initiative and help improve it with a view to finding ways to plug the loopholes in the legal and institutional frameworks. For example, it may be useful to study the operations of Judge Heath Special Investigations Unit created by President Mandela in 1996 which carried out multi-disciplinary investigations and then conducted civil recovery of state assets and public funds usually through negotiations with culprits rather than going through the criminal prosecution process. In a situation of cash economy where there is no paper trail, the South African experience may be instructive.

A study of the experience of the Milan anti-corruption magistrates, whose “Mani Pulite” (Clean Hands) or “Tangentopoli” (“Bribe City”) investigations brought down the four decades old Christian Democrats government with their Socialist allies thus paving the way for the now disgraced Silvio Berlusconi to come to power with his coalition partners, could also be useful. This was a nationwide judicial investigation of political corruption in the 1990s that had far reaching results in Italy. Without stamping out political corruption, it is difficult to control bureaucratic corruption. My point is that the proposed law may benefit from consideration of and adaptation from the worldwide anti-corruption experience and lessons learned.
Mr Ruzindana is a former IGG and former MP.

a_ruzindana@yahoo.com