Introduction

Over the past decade, the fight against corruption has attracted international attention and has encouraged the international community to tackle the issue as a global phenomenon.   Many countries in a bid to comprehensively meet the challenges of   fighting   corruption within the context of globalization, have adopted the method of co-opting certain clauses from international anti corruption instruments. Notable among these instruments are the UN Convention against Corruption, the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, African Union Convention on Prevention and Combating Corruption (AU-CPCC), Council of Europe (CoE) Criminal Law Convention on Corruption etc. These documents present international consensus about what states should do in the areas of corruption prevention and criminalization, as well as international cooperation and asset recovery. Sierra Leone enacted a new anti corruption bill in September 2008 which as the ACC Chairman puts it: “is in line with international standards”. This article seeks to analyze the commonalities in these conventions and see how the Sierra Leone ACC Act of 2008 reflects these international instruments.

International and Regional Anti Corruption Conventions

Corruption is no longer an issue for national governments alone. The issue of globalization has factored into the effort and activities of national governments to curb this menace in societies. Like national anti corruption documents, international anti corruption conventions focus on both public and private sector corruptions with some variation. The reasons for the variations are understandable, amongst these conventions, only the UN Convention against Corruption seem to be more international in nature. It recognizes the Commonality and complexity of Corruption as a problem among all nations and shares responsibilities in case of cross border corruption activities. The others like the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, AU-CPCC, CoE Criminal Law Convention on Corruption etc. tend to be more regional in nature. The major reason being the similarities of problems between such countries in the same region. A major commonality among these conventions is on the coverage of offences. Bribery, domestic and foreign embezzlement, diversion of property by public officials, illicit enrichment, concealment of property, trading influence and money laundering seem to cuts across all of them. The Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transaction however, specifically covers bribery of foreign public officials giving a broad definition of “Bribery” and “foreign Public Officials”. Another commonality amongst these conventions is the level of obligation amongst member states with regards implementation. Though member states are to a large extent obligated to implement provisions in these conventions, yet not all provisions are mandatory. In the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business transactions for instance, the level of obligation is mandatory for the implementation of all the    provisions, while for the Inter American Convention Against Corruption on the other instance, the level of    obligation for implementation is a mixture of mandatory and discretionary provisions. One of the most significant issues which guarantee the effectiveness of documents whether local or international is their implementation and this can be directly linked with the process of monitoring. Monitoring encourages and enhances compliance by state parties without which an instrument becomes “a white elephant” or farfetched. Not all the international anti-corruption conventions provide for monitoring within their text. The UN Convention against Corruption for instance, does not provide for monitoring in its text, rather, responsibility for reviewing implementation of the Convention lies with the Conference of State Parties. Formal review mechanisms maybe put in place to assess measures taken by state parties to implement the Convention. On the other hand, article 12 under the OECD Convention provides for state parties the requirement to monitor the implementation and promote the Convention. In the AU-CPCC, the monitoring mechanism is provided for in article 22 and calls for an Advisory Board of eleven members elected by the AU Executive Council and serving for a period of two years.

Sierra Leone Anti Corruption Act

The Anti Corruption Act, 2008 (ACC Act 2008) is an embodiment of both international and local standards and is generally considered a potent document in tackling the hydra headed monster that has persistently buffeted Sierra Leone with serious socio-economic problems. Unlike the previous Act, The ACC Act 2008 provided for independence in the investigation and prosecution of corruption, protection of whistle blowers, entering into international cooperation for the purpose of combating corruption, and most importantly the declaration of assets by public servants.

As the issue of corruption gain momentum within the international arena, the notion of giving the ACC Act 2008 an international flavour was welcomed for several reasons. Firstly, it sends a signal that no individual can escape or dodge the cause of justice when found wanting. This will limit the likelihood of siphoning funds through corrupt means from one country to another and from one region to the other since the principle of entering into international cooperation guarantees access to trace both individuals and funds for possible extradition and retrieval. Secondly, it guarantees Sierra Leone a status in it effort to fight corruption and foster development thus putting the country ahead of many African Countries. This is directly linked with the renewed ability of the ACC to assert it authority through it independence to investigate matters and also prosecute those found wanting.

The question however is, where does the ACC of Sierra Leone stand in terms of the provisions that reflect the required international Standards? Part VII of the Act under the broad heading “Mutual Assistance” guarantees the Commission to seek for international assistance. Such assistance can be predicated upon either a request to a foreign state or vice versa. With regards request to a foreign state, section 109 subsection (1) (a) and (b) provides that: “The Commissioner may, after consultation with the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, make a request to a foreign state- (a) which he considers maybe able to provide evidence or information relating to corruption offence; or (b) for freezing and forfeiture of property located in that state and which is liable to be forfeited by reason of it being the proceeds of a corruption offence.” In the same vein, Section 103 under cooperation with Foreign State provides for assistance to a foreign state upon request from such regarding execution, delay or refusal in executing such request. It reads thus:     “Subject to section 108, where a foreign state makes a request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a corrupt offence, the Commissioner shall, after consultation with the minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General and Minister of justice, (a) execute the request; (b) inform the foreign state making the request of any reason- (1) for not executing the request forthwith; or (2) for the delaying the execution of the request.” The significance of these provisions hinges on the interdependency of states for a realistic and effective approach in combating cross border crimes. Section 106 is a very significant provision because it enhances the Commission’s ability to influence the forfeiture and freezing of property in a foreign state. Under the heading “Freezing and Forfeiture of Property in International Co-operation”, subsection (1a) of section 106 prescribes the process and states: “Subject to section 108, the Commissioner upon application to the High Court and upon production to the High Court of a request for a freezing or forfeiture of property of or in the possession or under the control of a person named in the request, may obtain an order- (a) freezing the property of or in the possession or under the control of the person named in the request for such period as is indicated in the order;…”.   Section 103 provides for property tracking in foreign states and significantly ensures that where applicable, identification, qualifying and locating of property and documentation are done. Another major provision in the ACC Act, 2008 which is significantly present in the international conventions is the protection of whistleblowers as provided for in section 81 of the Act. Subsection (3) of same goes further to provide incentive for the whistle blower where such information results to a conviction. This will to a certain degree encourage citizens to provide credible and reliable information where the need may arise thus fostering the war on corruption. Unlike international conventions where adherence to such requires the commitment of member states, national legislation requires the commitment of the constituent body such as the ACC to actualize such provisions. However, the ACC need to be more vigilant and robust in addressing acts constituting corruption.

Conclusion    

While it is relevant for a document such as the Anti Corruption Act, 2008 to be in line with international standards, it is also important that the Commission, armed with this weapon, assume a pro-active disposition to actualize its mandate. Battling corruption is not as simple as monitoring projects and improving documentation. It is a deep cultural phenomenon that will entail revolutionizing approaches and social norms. Corruption is not only a contributor to poverty but a hindrance to anti-poverty initiatives and is in itself borne out of poverty.