Transparency Watch (TW): What are the responsibilities of government and donors to prevent / fight corruption?

Dr. Grace Atieno Ongile (GAO): Government should make sure that they enforce the Public Procurement Law [this law, under public service reform has been in place approximately five years and ensures that all procurement is done through a tender process and that evaluations of the tenders are conducted] with donors, especially when it comes to implementing donor projects. They also would need to develop a disciplined financial plan aimed at ensuring the goals and objectives of the programmes, which should be achieved within the stipulated timeframes, and in transparent and accountable way.

TW: How could beneficiaries be involved more effectively to prevent corruption in the use of development resources?

GAO: The beneficiaries would need to be on board in the planning and management of the projects. This would give them an opportunity to carry out some oversight in the implementation phase. In terms of preventing corruption, proper accounting and financial information needs to be provided to the beneficiaries in order to erase any doubts of financial impropriety in the use of the project funds.

TW: How can civil society be better integrated in oversight?

GAO: The recently formed District Oversight Committees [an oversight committee made up of a mix of civil servants, donors and civil society working at the district level] are a bold step towards institutionalising civil societies’ role in the fight against corruption. This needs to be further encouraged to empower civil society in this agenda. It also is vital for civil society to uphold integrity and accountability in their day to day operations in order to provide them with a solid moral obligation to enforce anti-corruption practices.

TW: The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is designed on a principle of sharing experiences and best practices. What examples of this have you seen in the fight against corruption?

GAO: The fact that the APRM provides African countries opportunities to share and encourage each other in their endeavours to entrench good governance is very noble. On corruption, Rwanda has been observed to have minimal public perception on prevalence of graft. This is good since it is an embodiment of citizenry support to their government’s commitment to uphold a zero tolerance attitude toward graft. Kenya has enacted a complex institutional framework of not just fighting graft, but eliminating it altogether. Within the APRM Country Report this has been highly acknowledged as a step in the right direction. More is, however, expected by the Kenyan public of these institutions to deliver on their mandates through enforcing the prosecution of corrupt individuals. This will lead to improved perception on graft by the Kenyan public.

TW: Ten years from now, how much of a difference will NEPAD and the APRM – outside some national programmes – have made to corruption in Africa?

GAO: The APRM as a tool of governance has been formulated to ensure continual monitoring and self analysis. It has a strong component of engaging the citizenry in the quest for improved governance through sustained dialogue on the key aspects of institutionalizing the principles of good governance. This is through encouraging good political governance and democratic processes, sound economic management strategies and solid corporate governance frameworks. All of this aims at ensuring a decent socio-economic environment for development in Africa. The reduction of corruption within the continent remains firmly within the agenda of APRM and NEPAD.

TW: One of NEPAD’s goals is to bring greater Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into Africa. How does corruption affect this?

GAO: Greater foreign investment will not necessarily guarantee development of the African continent. Recall that much of the FDI that was brought into Africa in the recent past only benefited the ruling elites and the expatriates themselves. While NEPAD recognizes the importance of FDI, the institutional environment within which countries in Africa receive FDI needs to be examined to ensure that the investment carries out its intended purpose. Investment aimed at alleviating poverty through support of sustainable initiatives in Africa is highly appreciated, since this will end up improving the socio-economic standards within the continent.

TW: Likewise, NEPAD is supposed to increase Africa’s competitiveness – how far does corruption set this back?

GAO: Corruption denies the private sector in Africa the equal opportunities to operate. It provides only those companies with influence – usually acquired corruptly – to engage in business and so reduces the benefits of competitive business. Corruption also diverts resources set aside for some projects to individuals and in doing so it denies society an opportunity to develop. For Africa to appropriately pose some global competitive edge, African governments have to enforce proper fiscal discipline, hinged on good governance, integrity and accountability. All this will have a definite advantage, especially in spurring sustained economic growths, and in the long-term, Africa’s competitiveness in global economy.

TW: There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) will be reached. How have the MGDs been affected by corruption?

GAO: Most of the African countries are performing dismally in terms of working to attain the MDGs by the year 2030. It is evident that many things are contributing to this and that corruption alone can not explain this. First, countries needed to domesticate their plans for attaining the MDGs within the specific government development plans and resources. This would have guaranteed maximum resources to drive initiatives geared towards the attainment of the MDGs. Diverting public funds into individual’s coffers is subservient towards realization of the MDGs. Hence it is true that an environment that is conducive for corruption would definitely hinder the attainment of these goals by the year 2015.

****************************************************************************************************************

Dr. Grace Atieno Ongile joined NEPAD Kenya Secretariat as Chief Executive Officer in 2005. She holds a Doctorate from University of Manchester , U.K. Since she joined NEPAD, she has coordinated the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process in Kenya and directly contributed towards the Kenya APRM Report. Her recent work also includes coordination of a research programme on "International Trade and Gender in East Africa" from 1999 to 2004.

Before joining NEPAD, Dr. Ongile worked at the African Capacity Building Foundation, in Harare Zimbabwe where she successfully managed projects in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Botswana, Malawi and Zimbabwe.