Combating Corruption In Ghana: Let’s Walk The Talk!

To start this piece, I will like to quote from the foreword of the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan (NACAP). The last paragraph of the foreword says “The control of corruption in Ghana should be the responsibility of each citizen. By this contribution, citizens are given the opportunity to join hands and tackle corruption in the country in order to secure and sustain the nation’s development.” This, in my opinion, is very consistent with the spirit and tenets of the 1992 Constitution and each and every one of us owe it a duty to this country to do something about corruption instead of just talking about it.

I first came across this document in 2013 and there was and still no doubt in my mind that this is an impressive document produced by people who know the in and out of corruption in Ghana. I congratulate the Chairman and his working group for a very good document which if implemented wholeheartedly to even about 50% of its contents will lead to great improvements in the lives of many Ghanaians. The NACAP is apt in defining and identifying the causes, impact and implications of corruption in Ghana if nothing is done. Under section 2.3, nineteen (19) issues have been identified as “most significant issues” that NACAP must address. Reading through the document and also from a review of the literature on corruption, I am of the opinion that the “most significant issues” as captured by NACAP should have been twenty (20) in number and this is the focus of this article today. That which is missing, in my opinion, is the in-depth legislative review and amendments of our laws on corruption. The following are the reasons for this conclusion:

First, NACAP under section 2.1 concludes that the Criminal Offences Act, Act 29 of 1960 limits the definition of corruption to bribery only and therefore goes ahead to propose amendment to this act in activity 2 under strategic objective 4. Emile Short, the former commissioner of CHRAJ in 2014 also alluded to this fact. The amendment proposed is to expand the definition of corruption but I am of the belief that we need to do more than that. As captured by NACAP, the fact that Act 29 makes corruption a misdemeanour and yet a person found guilty of corruption can serve up to 25 years in jailed, for me, is not in tune with best practices. Generally, misdemeanours are defined as lesser crimes or instances of misbehavior or misdeed punishable by fines or jail terms less than one year. So classifying corruption, which is virtually bringing Ghana to its knees, a misdemeanour is not a disincentive enough and need to be reviewed.

Secondly, the issue of the giver and taker of bribes being both culpable in cases of corruption is another area we need to take a second look. Section 239 of the criminal Offences Act, Act 29 of 1960 states: “(1)A public officer or juror who commits corruption, or wilful oppression, or extortion, in respect of the duties of office, commits a misdemeanour”. “(2)A person who corrupts any other person in respect of a duty as a public officer or juror commits a misdemeanour”. I stand to be corrected but I believe this is the portions of the law that is interpreted to mean the givers and takers of bribes are both guilty of a crime if proven. I have a different opinion after reading section 239 of Act 29, but if that is the interpretation given to it, then this is also another area which in my opinion needs to be reviewed and amended. Before proceeding to give reasons, I wish to state that this is an area of great debate and controversy in the world today especially in places like India and I am not oblivious of this fact. But after carefully reviewing the literature and considering who we are as a society, I am of the considered opinion that depending on the circumstances of a case of corruption, the giver and the taker must be differentiated if we are to make any gains in the fight against corruption. Here are my reasons.

A review of the literature on corruption shows that corruption can be classified into Coercive (also sometimes referred to as Harassment) and Collusive corruption. To better explain these, I will use bribery which is just one aspect of corruption. To better appreciate these classifications, we need to view it from the perspective of the giver of bribes because the fact actually is that if the giver does not give, there will be nothing to take. The question to ask is, why will someone part with money or something in order to get a service or something in return which ordinarily should have been done for him anyway? For me, there are only two reasons: Either s/he was forced (coerced) or s/he wants to unduly influence a process in his favour (collusion because without the assistance of another person this process cannot be completed and will only remain an attempted bribe).

My first contention is that in the case of Coercive corruption, the giver should not be culpable of any offence if he is willing and able to show that he was forced or harassed to pay the bribe. Someone will ask; what if the giver is not willing? Such a person could be charged for abetting crime which I believe is already an offence under our laws. This combined with appropriate public sector reforms like the installation of security cameras, service delivery standards and charters with time limits for specific services etc. will not only encourage people to report corrupt officials but will also serve as an appropriate disincentive to officials who deliberately harassed unsuspecting clients for bribes. Let us consider this practical example on coercive corruption. Let us consider the case of a client who is a contractor. Before a certificate for payment is prepared, s/he is given all sorts of excuses until s/he parts with something or promises to give something when payment is finally made. After the certificate is prepared, it has to go through processes and at every stage of this process similar excuses are given for the contractor to part with money or something valuable. A contractor may only be spared these harassments if someone high in authority has sufficient personal interest in the contract. The question I ask is, why should such a contractor who has been coerced and harassed to pay bribe be culpable? In my opinion, such a contractor should rather be empowered and encouraged to report such coercion and harassment before and after the process of paying the bribe by ensuring that s/he is free after reporting. In coercive corruption, it is always clear that a public official is abusing his/her office for personal gain by unnecessarily delaying a service or unnecessarily harassing an unsuspecting client till s/he parts with something. This kind of corruption has assumed catastrophic levels in this country and some officials now even practice it with impunity, and I think we need to rethink if we are serious in combating and minimising its effects on our society.

My second contention is that in the case of Collusive corruption, where two or more people connive to steal from the state or unduly influence a process for mutual personal gain, all involved in the process are culpable and should be punished accordingly if found guilty. This type of corruption is, undoubtedly, responsible for what in the words of Martin Amidu is described as “gargantuan crimes” against the state and Justice Jones Dotse also succinctly described as “Create, Loot and Share”. And here, I am correcting myself because in an earlier reference to this “create, loot and share” in one of my write ups, I mistakenly attribute it to Justice Appau and my attention was drawn to this mistake by one of my trusted colleagues. I apologise for that error.

Again, I will use the case of bribery to explain this. Let us take the case of obtaining a building permit for example. A client approaches the officer in charge for the service. The officer after scrutinising the documents and visiting the site of the proposed building tells the client; I am sorry the permit cannot be issued for your building because where you are going to site the building is on a water way. Then, the client, sensing danger, whispers into the ears of the officer; please I beg you do it for me I will give you anything you ask for. Then goes ahead to offer say GH₵2,000.00. Then, the officer gives in and issues the building permit. This is collusive corruption and both the giver and taker are culpable because the giver induced or influenced the taker for his parochial and personal interest and the taker abused his office for allowing money to influence his decision to do the wrong thing and they must both be punished if found guilty.

The question to ask here again is, what if the public officer is able to resist such an influence and does the right thing? Yes, I agree that there are still good and God fearing public officers who will reject such temptations. Here too, I think that once the officer has been able to reject the bribe, then it remains an attempted bribe and attempted bribe should rather be criminalised in our laws as a misdemeanour. This will also serve as an appropriate disincentive to criminally minded individuals who have intentions of trying to unduly influence processes in their favour.

For me, these legislative reforms are necessary if we are serious about tackling the menace of corruption in this country considering the kind of society we live in today. These amendments if carried out will help NACAP achieve its strategic objective one which aims at making the practice of corruption a high risk, low gain activity.

To conclude, I wish to reiterate the point made earlier that I have no doubt in the fact that NACAP is a good document and a step in the right direction but my fear and like many other Ghanaians, is how well it will be implemented and allowed to work. All I am saying in this piece is that to make NACAP work better, we need to take a comprehensive look at our legislative regime regarding corruption with respect to the issues raised herein.

I like the definition of corruption in NACAP; “The misuse of entrusted power for personal gain”.

I end here but will surely be back on this vexed topic of corruption.

Charles Ayuune Akurugu
[email protected]