IN perhaps one of the few if not lone official voice ever in a long time regarding corruption, the governor of Erongo has called on the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to start to act decisively against bigger corruption cases as opposed to focusing on smaller cases as it seems to have been doing all along.
The ACC was on an outreach programme in the region recently. Indeed this is a welcome move to hear and see the ACC reaching out so that it can become visible because it seems as far as rooting out corruption, and especially bigger cases as the Erongo governor points out, is invisible. This invisibility of the ACC currently, may partly be due to the fact that the general public has as yet to come to grips with its actual work, if not as yet altogether having to awaken to the reason for its actual reason for existence. As much as the actual reason for its existence, which is combating corruption, is well known, despite since its birth more than ten years ago, there has factually speaking been little to write home about regarding this institution. In fact for some reasons the hype, optimism and excitement with which the office was created by the former president, His Excellency Hifikepunye Pohamba, and received as much with great expectations by the general Namibian public, seems altogether to have dissipated if not evaporated altogether.
“As before, there will be zero tolerance for waste and corruption in public life. I therefore, make a solemn pledge to you my compatriots, and fellow citizens that I shall set a personal example.” These were the assuring words of His Excellency Pohamba when he assumed office on March 21, 2005. He followed this up with deeds with the establishment of the office of the ACC. But since, can much really be said to have happened, even in the least to imprint the ACC in the psyches of many, including the political principals, regarding its resoluteness to root out corruption?
Even during the reign of President Pohamba himself, except initially, can the ACC really be said to have been going from strength to strength? No, on the contrary, rather, it seems somehow to have been slowly fading away. And today its results, if anything, have been at best negligible and at worse the office has been seeming moribund than anything else.
Granted, as the Chief Education Officer of the ACC has recently been quoted in the media, that the ACC needs the collaboration of all and sundry to combat corruption. But the few as small as they may have been must instill some confidence that the office is here to mean business in fighting corruption. One would not want to believe that lack or reluctance of whistleblowers to be very much a factor in the office carrying out its mandate.
But as much as the ACC may be blemished, the reality is that during this period one has been hearing little, or close to nothing especially from the political principals, whether rhetorically or otherwise, regarding corruption in society, and the need to root it out. Not in the same vogue and zeal that President Hage Geingob lately seems resolute and zealous to address poverty. Hence my reference to once in a blue moon and lone voice of the Erongo governor.
Simply, politically an anti-corruption culture does not exist in Namibia, perhaps a situation that might have been mitigating boldly addressing the problem. Any hint at the existence of corruption has often been met by the excuse by the political principals that it is not as yet endemic to Namibia.
Thus, one cannot agree more with Graham Hopwood who once wrote about the prerequisites for a successful anti-corruption strategy, and by extension also an anti-corruption culture. These are a political leadership, political will, public support, a broad-based action and a holistic approach.
Equally one cannot ignore the sublime tension, if not seeming duplication between the ACC and the Office of the Ombudsman. The ACC, as much as the Office of the Ombudsman, are tasked with fighting corruption. Where does one draw the line? Perhaps this must have been an oversight with those tasking the Ombudsman with fighting corruption because traditionally and conventionally, in the countries of the birth of the Ombudsoffice, like Scandinavian countries, the spirit had not been for the Ombudsman to deal with corruption but with maladministration. This entails any commission or omission in public administration, including arbitrariness with a negative impact on those who are meant to be served by such an administrative act.
One cannot ignore but also take issue with the status of the ACC, which is a mere directorate without any constitutional foundation, compared to the Ombudsman. Its inhibition in this regard to investigate cases against the assumed “big fishes” may be obvious. Not to mention the budget that has been allocated to it, N$53 million this year.
Is and can this be proportional to the task at hand in fighting corruption? Perhaps if we start to quantify how much the country is losing annually through corruption and waste, and lost developmental opportunity in terms of funds that ordinarily would have been used for development, we would be able to appreciate the extent of the problem of corruption.