Playing games with corruption

The man’s voice was choked with emotion as he narrated his ordeal of how helpless the whole institution was to pursue further action while persons who should have faced possible prosecution walked free. Mr Theophilus Cudjoe, a former acting Executive Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), could not hide his frustration when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament to give account of what he knew about payment of judgement debts to some organisations and companies including Construction Pioneers (CP). According to Mr Cudjoe, SFO investigations had shown that some public officers had questions to answer on how huge sums of the taxpayer’s money were paid to CP and recommended their arrest and prosecution. Unfortunately that was how far the SFO could go. The Act establishing the SFO, Act 466 of 1993, placed the responsibility for prosecution under the authority of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. That meant that all the powers given to the SFO were under one breath snatched away, effectively rendering that important national anti-corruption institution a toothless bulldog. The former SFO boss said nothing could be more painful than seeing someone who should be facing charges of causing financial loss to the state walking free and testifying on behalf of the same foreign company in London. Apart from the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice having ministerial responsibility over the SFO, the governing board owed allegiance solely to the Executive and, thereby putting to severe test all proclamations of fighting corruption, should a member of the government be cited for corruption. According to Act 466 (Serious Fraud Office Act, 1993), the Governing Board consists of (a) The Chairman; (b) The Attorney-General or a Chief State Attorney as the AG’s representative; (c) The Minister responsible for the Interior or the minister’s representative; (d) The Inspector-General of Police or a Commissioner of Police as the IGP’s representative; (e) The Executive Secretary of the Narcotics Control Board; (f) One other person and (g) the Executive Director. All these officers derived their appointments directly or indirectly from the President, thus, effectively diluting any semblance of independence or autonomy in the SFO’s operations. Under the circumstances, many government officials were likely to escape prosecution for any acts of corruption or wilfully causing financial loss to the state so long as they remained part of the political apparatus. That was how the SFO, throughout its existence, failed to stamp its authority on the fight against corruption with the exception of a few instances when those caught in its net were mainly political opponents of the government in power. Remember the Quality Grain trials? The SFO was succeeded by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), which derived its authority from Act 804 of 2010. The Governing Board of EOCO is not much different from that of the defunct SFO. Apart from representation from the Ghana Bar Association and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, all the other board members owe allegiance primarily to the President. Members of the governing board include the Executive Director, who is appointed by the President; a representative of the IGP; a representative of the Narcotics Control Board; a representative of the Attorney-General’s Office; a representative of the Ghana Revenue Authority; a representative nominated by the Ghana Bar Association; a Chartered Accountant nominated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and one member nominated by the minister responsible for National Security. What has not changed is that the EOCO, like its predecessor, the SFO, is effectively under the armpit of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, who determines whether to prosecute or not to prosecute public officials cited for economic and organised crimes against the state. What that means is that the government in power could decide to be protective of its members while throwing the searchlight on others. Today, politics has become lucrative compelling people to adopt all types of desperate measures to win political power, because while corruption and illegal acquisition of wealth is glaring, all political office holders and their collaborators in business and public service appear to be saints far out of the reach of anti-corruption laws and the agencies that are supposed to enforce them. Peter Cardinal Kodwo Appiah Turkson, President, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the Vatican, made reference to this money-grabbing phenomenon that has taken control of our politics when he delivered his speech as the Guest Speaker at the 17th GJA Awards Night at the weekend. The Eminent Cardinal drew attention to the ‘winner-takes-all’ syndrome and politics as a source livelihood, or stomach politics as it is commonly described, which have permeated our society to the extent that our country is not only stagnating but actually retrogressing on the path of social integration and eonomic development. From the lamentations of Mr Cudjoe, it could be seen that our anti-corruption institutions as presently constituted by law are woefully inadequate and severely incapacitated to serve the purpose. If we are serious about fighting corruption, which has been identified as public enemy number one thwarting our developing efforts, we need to build institutions with greater independence and autonomy to execute their mandate effectively. We are proud of our democracy and continue to give credit for our success in holding elections to elect our leaders after every four years. What we fail to acknowledge is that we have come this far because of one institution – the Electoral Commission – which has been insulated against manipulation. We would be on the way to national redemption and separating the nationalists and patriots from the pretenders if we take certain steps to make it more and more difficult for people to take the nation for a ride. First, we must separate the State Prosecutor from the Ministry of Justice and the make the former independent and autonomous whose appointment would be on the lines of the Electoral Commissioner. Second, is to make the number one state anti-corruption institution wholly and truly independent and autonomous similar to the Electoral Commission. If we cannot do this, then let us forget the lip service and all the pretences of fighting corruption. *fokofi@yahoo.co.uk kofiakordor.blogspot.com