You can't fight corruption unless there's commitment at top

Since graduating from the school of journalism in 1999, there is no topic I have written about more than corruption and the so-called fight against corruption.

As a young “good governance” enthusiast, I did not really have a clear understanding of the political economy of corruption and its global linkages. That corruption is simply a way for elite to accumulate wealth, was unknown to me. That the public only gets to know about corrupt deals when the corrupt disagree and whistleblowing becomes a way of exerting revenge was something foreign in my thinking.

I did not pause long enough to think about the fraternal link between corruption, funding of politics and political parties, and generally, the exercise of state power. The link between third-world corruption and capital flight was still alien. After all, many major economies had even criminalised bribe giving in foreign lands by their own multinational companies.

The problem at that point, for me, was merely structural: get laws and structures right and corruption would be fought!

This view was supported enthusiastically, against all factual evidence, by donors. This is why so many civil society organisations started championing anti-corruption. Official anti-graft institutions proliferated not only in Kenya, but the whole of Africa, funded by both states and donors.

A QUESTION

In 2009, when researching for a Clarion publication titled Integrity in Kenya’s Public Service: Illustrations from Goldenberg and Anglo-Leasing Scandals, one of our researchers asked the question: “Why, given the laws and institutions we have created, does corruption persist?” The conclusion that “corruption and anti-corruption institutions seem to co-exist comfortably” was eye-opening and engendered a paradigm shift.

Kenya, indeed, is a perfect illustration of the unfortunate fact that more anti-graft institutions do not mean reduction in corruption. In fact, amid turf wars, actions meant to please the powers-that-be and fighting for donor funds among themselves, the more institutions focusing on corruption, the less is achieved.

Since 1997, when the Kenya Anti-Corruption Authority was set up, Kenya has had three different specialised anti-corruption agencies, the Anti-Corruption Police Unit the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission.

Add to this the National Anti-Corruption Campaign Steering Committee and the Efficiency Monitoring Unit and the picture becomes clearer.

These are by no means the only institutions fighting graft. The Auditor-General, the Controller of Budget, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Police Service, including the Department of Criminal Investigations, ad infinitum, all have some role to play in fighting corruption and economic fraud.

Some of these institutions are to be commended. Both the Auditor-General and the Controller of Budget have done their bit to show the country how resources are being stolen and misused at the national and county levels. However, most of the other institutions have been captured by the same interests they are supposed to fight.

In the recent past, Kenyans have watched with admiration the actions of President John Magufuli of Tanzania in fighting corruption. After a few months of #WhatWouldMagufuliDo?, the National Civil Society Congress called upon President Uhuru Kenyatta to emulate President Magufuli.

The lesson is very clear. You cannot fight corruption unless there is commitment at the very top. It is that political commitment that will “free” anti-corruption institutions from capture.

Morris Odhiambo is the president of the National Civil Society Congress and a former member of the National Anti-Corruption Campaign Steering Committee; [email protected].