COMMONWEALTH BUSINESS FORUM
Abuja, Nigeria
2-4 December 2004
Keynote Address by H.E. Alhaji Dr. Ahmad Tejan Kabbah
President of the Republic of Sierra Leone.
Private-Public Dialogue Session 4 on the theme:
"Combating Corruption"
Thursday 4 December 2003

Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

I thought I should let you all know that if I had been given an option of participating in any of the sixteen private-public dialogue sessions of the 2003 Commonwealth Business Forum, my first choice would have been this one, convened to consider the problem of combating corruption. As you probably know, the struggle to eradicate corruption has been a major preoccupation of my Government. I took the unprecedented move of signing the Anti-Corruption Act in February 2000 establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission. Then last year I declared corruption a national security issue-a threat to the security of Sierra Leone. This was intended to underscore the gravity of the problem and its effects on the economic, social and political stability of the country. It might interest you to note that prior to the passing of the Act the mere mention of the word corruption was a taboo.

So, let me thank the Commonwealth Business Council for inviting me to deliver the keynote address in this important forum.

In this keynote address, I want to focus attention on a number of topical issues that frequently occur in the literature and discussion of the subject of corruption.

The first such issue is corruption and poverty. Here our discussion should focus on the economic consequences of corruption, which lead to economic inefficiencies, and in the extreme case, cause or perpetuate poverty.

Corruption is responsible for allocation of scarce resources to the wrong activities and persons. By this I mean that wealth flows into private coffers instead of the public treasury. Examples are corruption in tax collection. A bribe to a customs official will reduce an import tax, with part of what should have been collected going to the pocket of the public official and part staying in the pocket of the importer. What should have been collected by government is thus distributed between the private coffers of the government official and the private importer.

This creates the vicious cycle of the inability of government to improve conditions of service of the public sector, which then perpetuates the incentives for petty corruption. Even in the mind of the customs official, he or she may feel justified in "topping up" his or her own income, arguing that this is only "fair" retribution for long hours of work for low pay. The sum of petty corruption constitutes significantly to the bankruptcy of government.

Ladies and Gentlemen, how often are we not told, that public workers such as customs and police officers are prone to solicit or even demand bribes because they are poorly paid? In other words, the assertion is that they are corrupt or tend to be corrupt because they are miserably underpaid and are poor. Of course many people see this as an excuse for soliciting and demanding bribes. However, does it follow that because ours is a poor country most people have no alternative but to engage in corrupt practices? Does this mean that poverty breeds corruption? One could take it further and ask whether poverty reduction programmes such as the one now being implemented in Sierra Leone, could contribute to our efforts aimed at combating corruption, or is it the other way round? That is to say, in combating corruption we would in the process be contributing to the attainment of our objective of reducing poverty.

There is a related perception, one that appears to dominate the debate on poverty and corruption. The widely held view-and I am speaking here from the perspective of the Third World, which attributes the state of poverty in many of our countries to corruption. In other words, we often hear that these countries are rich in natural resources but continue to remain poor and underdeveloped because of corruption. In short, corruption, and I should add, corruption by public officials, appears to have become one of the root causes, if not the root cause of all that afflict our countries - from civil wars to economic stagnation. Does this mean that combating corruption by public officials is a panacea for all those afflictions?

It has also become a truism to point out that corrupt practices involve two actors, and two private beneficiaries to the detriment of the public good. The public sector employee cannot commit an act of corruption without a private sector bribe, and vice versa. This points to the need for concerted action and coalitions to address this scourge that is bankrupting our governments and impoverishing our nations.

In the case of larger scale bribes, such as the pay-off to public officials to make decisions in favour of one particular outcome, this kind of larger-scale bribe distorts economic decision-making. Choices that are made based on the benefit to private parties instead of the public benefit are in theory sub-optimal choices, and in practice often result in near total economic loss.

This is not limited to domestic economic activities but it also has a negative impact on private investment particularly direct foreign investment.

This means that there is a direct relationship between corruption and that high-grade lubricant of economic growth called "foreign investment." So, in section 14 of the Sierra Leone Anti-Corruption Act, there are penalties for those public officers who impede foreign investment through certain corrupt practices.

This brings me to another issue that we could discuss in this dialogue. That is corruption in and by the private sector. We acknowledge that it is the primary responsibility of government to create the conditions for ensuring the economic and social well being of its people. That responsibility, of course, includes the removal of any obstacle or barrier that could impede progress towards the attainment of this goal. Governments are supposed to create an enabling environment for investment. It is not surprising then that many of our governments are blamed for corrupt practices committed in their respective countries. They are criticized for "not doing enough" to wipe out corruption. So, the target for all our anti-corruption mechanisms is the public sector. For instance, virtually all the elements of corrupt practices listed under Part IV of the Sierra Leone Anti-Corruption Act are targeted at public officers.

However, is corruption the prerogative of public officials? Is corruption a one-way street? If there are sanctions and penalties against public officers for soliciting and demanding bribes, how do we deal with those who corrupt public officers by offering them advantages (bribes) as an inducement in procuring contracts or subcontracts? These are relevant questions that we must address in our discussion of the role of the business sector and government in eradicating corruption.

Sierra Leone and many other countries of the developing world have enacted anti-corruption legislations. However, is national legislation enough, especially from the perspective of the capacity to implement and enforce the provisions of these legislations? Do we see implementation of anti-corruption legislations as an integral part shared responsibility between governments and the business community?

In the age of globalization and the intricate web of international business transactions, we should acknowledge that corruption is not just a national problem that can be addressed only through national legislation and similar mechanisms. Indeed, the adoption a few weeks ago of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which compliments the UN Convention against Trans national Organized Crime, underscores the international dimension of the problem of corruption. Undue influence from strong and powerful countries, transactional corporations and multilateral organizations against weak and defenceless poor countries can also be an integral part of the corruption equation.

A second topical issue deals with the political dimension of corruption - that is to say that corruption is a security threat to a democratic state.

Corruption delegitimizes the state. In a democracy, there is a positive correlation between legitimacy and authority. In a democracy, authority rests on the pillar or popular support, good governance and the rule of law. In contrast, in a dictatorship, authority is derived from force, where decisions can be imposed without the consent of the people.

Sierra Leone saw the effects of the collapse of state authority during the early nineties. The eleven-year conflict started in the most remote villages of our nation. Until it reached the capital Freetown. These were villages where alienation and lack of opportunities for youth and breakdown of justice and authority enabled rebels and predators to create violence and anarchy, and loss of control by the institutions of government.

In a democracy, corruption is an enemy of the state, because corrupt practices erode the trust of the people in government. Where authority is based not on force but on popular support and respect for the rule of law, an erosion of popular support and the rule of law is an erosion of state authority.

Therefore, corruption is for African states as important a threat to survival as is terrorism for some of the large world powers today, and as is HIV/AIDS for families and communities.

The challenge facing us now is to develop policies and strategies to address the issues raised above in a coherent and comprehensive manner. The first step is to establish appropriate institutions to deal with these issues. We in Sierra Leone have established an Anti-Corruption Commission but changing the way government does business will take more than the campaign of a single institution. Such an institution as the Anti-Corruption Commission in my country, in addition to the full backing of the government, needs the full support of the business community and the civil society, mobilized by their various activists and organizations. There must be zero tolerance for corrupt practices, as well as the adoption of new methods for prevention and prosecution of corruption. If our countries were committed, corruption should be a thing of the past.

Prevention and deterrence have an important role to play along side investigation and prosecution of corrupt practices. In the case of Sierra Leone, we are endeavouring to have every single case reported to the Anti-Corruption Commission treated expeditiously and reported on promptly, to the public. In fact, that is the right of those alleged to have committed acts in violation either of the Anti-Corruption Act or of criminal laws.

It is also important to adopt a strategic approach in the fight against corruption. It is not possible to address every deficiency at once. Selection of some areas for emphasis should be guided by determining which activities or interventions will make the most difference in deterring future corrupt practices. The preparation of a strategic plan for fighting corruption enables all of the possible components of an initiative to fit into a framework of linkages and relationships. Once there is a comprehensive picture or plan, some choices of emphasis should be taken. The choices can be strategic, based on the criteria of which activities can make the most difference, and which are achievable, to build on the success already achieved.

One of the activities proposed by the Sierra Leone Anti-Corruption Coalition, a civil society support group to the Anti-Corruption Commission is to celebrate a national "corrupt-free day". Imagine people sitting in their family circles, or talking among themselves in taxis or at the market, trying to picture life without corruption for just one day, and empowering each other to live a life without corrupt practices for just that day. That kind of focus is bound to generate a better understanding among the public about the pervasive occurrence of corruption.

This "corrupt-free day" campaign should be linked to a campaign for honest operations of the civil service, political actors, consumers and business communities. Making "corrupt-free day" a celebratory event will go a long way toward helping the general public define more carefully what corrupt practices are, and take ownership of their individual roles and responsibilities in creating a corrupt-free society.

It is clear that emphasis on transparency, accountability and integrity are key elements in the fight against corruption. Sierra Leone has had no elected Local Government since 1972. Our new Local Government Act has a chapter entitled "Transparency, Accountability and Participation", and we will endeavour to start off on the right footing with Transparency and Accountability embedded in these new system. One example is the requirement for all elected officials and senior civil servants in Local Government to make a declaration of assets before and after their terms of service, as a deterrent to illicit enrichment.

Governments reflect their societies. Often, the "big ideas" for reform do not reach the stage of implementation. The big ideas are sometimes blocked, and business as usual is preserved. Complacency, passivity and frustration are unfortunately characteristics that are associated with the continuation of corruption. Reform takes time, but the big ideas need to be launched and implemented vigorously by each nation's leadership, including public and private sectors.

Shall we reflect the nature of our impoverished societies, or shall we lead the process for change? These are our challenges today. It is the big ideas that will take our nations forward, not business as usual. A corrupt-free society is one of those big ideas. It is a fundamental building block for economic development and a fundamental pillar of a democratic state.

Finally, I wish to express profound gratitude to a number of organizations and institutions including DFID, The Commonwealth Secretariat, UNDP and the World Bank for the key role they have and continue to play in our fight against corruption. This is a fight we will and must win.

I thank you all.

-End-