Assets Declaration Is A Joke

The immediate past Director-General of the Ghana Health Service and presidential aspirant of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), Professor Agyeman Badu-Akosa has described the claim by politicians that declaring their assets would help curb corruption as a total hoax as far as it is not made public.

“I will like politicians, their family members and close allies to publicly declare their assets because there is the likelihood that they will hide behind somebody and loot the nation,” he said.

Prof. Akosa, who was speaking in an interview with The Enquirer in Accra said in as much as some politicians are prepared to declare their assets before coming to office, they must be prepared to publicly declare such assets when they leave office. He said it is equally important to romp public and civil servants into the assets declaration exercise since they are equally guilty of corruption as the politicians. Prof. Akosa, who described corruption as “white collar crime”, said it is important to make people have high stakes in whatever they do thus putting fear in them that they will lose everything when they are caught indulging in corruption.

He was of the belief that corruption will be minimized if the president shows exemplary leadership in the fight against the canker. He added that it is imperative that the president summons his ministers at least every three months to account for their stewardship. He observed that there are a lot of laws on corruption in the country but their enforcement is the problem. “Law enforcement as far as corruption is concerned is the bane of Ghanaians and I will go all out to save that situation,” he said. He said it is equally important to place public and civil servants on decent retirement and pension conditions since they would shun corrupt practices with such quality conditions.

“Civil and public servants are likely not to engage in unhealthy practices for the fear of loosing all the better conditions they have toiled for,” he added. He said that his trump card for the fight against corruption would be leadership by example under which he would be just and transparent. On the assertion that he was part of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration, Prof. Akosa said it was unfortunate that such assertion was making the rounds. “I have never been part of the NPP administration because I was never called from the castle to take up an appointment but rather worked as a public servant,” he said. He explained that the position he held was not a political appointment but a competitive job offer which was advertised in the newspapers. “I applied with three others and got the job”, he added.

Prof. Akosa on his presidential ambition told the paper that he was motivated by problems he encountered when he was the D-G of the GHS because he had the chance of travelling throughout the country. “During such trips, I even wondered if politicians ever existed in the country because the people were wallowing in abject poverty,” he said. He said that he realized that the politicians were always deceiving the people for their mandate only to shirk their responsibility and leave them to their fate. “It is pathetic to see vast portions of Ghanaian lands full of weeds and yet the country is said to be an agricultural one. I strongly believe that Ghanaians don’t eat weeds and that something must be done to the weeds,” he added. “The current situation Ghanaians find themselves in, is not dignified enough and the trend must be changed for the better. Eight out of ten school going children do not get into the universities. Something must be done and that is why I am in the race.”

He said that the country’s politicians are currently doing nothing better because they say things but refuse to put them on paper to help move the nation forward. On his chances of getting the nod as the CPP flag-bearer, Prof Akosa, told The Enquirer that his message has gone down well with the delegates and that he was sure of victory. “I have toured almost all the regions and met with the stakeholders of the CPP and strongly feel that something good will happen at the end of the congress,” he said.

He said leaders of the country could no longer dilly-dally with the destiny of Ghanaians that is why it is important to give him the nod. Touching on the CPP as a political entity, Prof. Akosa said it was only a political novice who would underrate the party in the 2008 elections. “Other political parties can underestimate the CPP at their own peril because the party is well poised to take up the country’s leadership mantle,” he said. He said the CPP is a sleeping giant and would be fully awake to pull a surprise on the other parties.

The Enquirer

Hello world! Hello Ghana!

Ghana has been praised by the Western World as a beacon in Africa.

The judiciary in Ghana is under the spotlight in this blog. Is it a beacon on the dark continent, or is it a puppet of forces unknown.

The core focus will be the exploration of the Ghana Integrity Initiative report that was launched in November 2007. And from that to launch an initiative to expose, prosecute and jail the scumbags within the Ghana Judiciary.

Judges, judicial staff, lawyers, litigants – If you go to bed tonight feeling at ease we applaud you.

The rest, prepare for the worst!!!

The Attorney – General

Under the Constitution of Ghana, there is an Attorney-General of Ghana who is a Minister of State and the principal legal adviser to the Government.

(1) The Attorney-General discharges such other duties of a legal nature as may be referred or assigned to him by the President, or imposed on him by the Constitution or any other law.

(2) The Attorney-General is responsible for the initiation and conduct of all prosecutions of criminal offences.

(3) All offences prosecuted in the name of the Republic of Ghana is at the suit of the Attorney-General or any other person authorised by him in accordance with any law.

(4) The Attorney-General is responsible for the institution and conduct of all civil cases on behalf of the State; and all civil proceedings against the State shall be instituted against the Attorney-General as defendant.

(5) The Attorney-General has audience in all courts in Ghana.

Anti-corruption Bodies

If you want to get in touch with the anti-corruption bodies or institutions in Ghana, here you go.

Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII)
Ghana Integrity Initiative
H/No. F 848B Adzoatse St. Osu
Private Mail Bag, CT 317, Cantonments, Accra Ghana

Telephone: +233 21 782364
Tel/fax: +233 21 782365
web: www.tighana.org
E-mail: gii@ghanatel.com.gh

Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)

1. HEAD OFFICE – Accra …………………….. 021-668839/664267

2. GREATER ACCRA – Accra …………………. 021-227111/226920

3. TEMA SUB-REGION – Tema ………………. 022-208002/3

4. WESTERN – Takoradi ……………………… 031-23730/25667

5. CENTRAL – Cape Coast …………………… 042-32280/33158

6. EASTERN – Koforidua ……………………… 081-22321/25168

7. ASHANTI – Kumasi ………………………… 051-27445/81653

8. BRONG-AHAFO – Sunyani ………………… 061-23573

9. VOLTA – Ho ……………………………….. 091-26797

10. NORTHERN – Tamale ……………………… 071-22035

11. UPPER EAST – Bolgatanga ……………….. 072-22312

12. UPPER WEST – Wa ………………………… 0756-22393

Website: http://www.chrajghana.org/index?articleId=0001
Email / Complaints: complaints@chrajghana.org

 

 

Anecdotal Evidence of Corruption

In the GII Judicial Corruption Report some judges, lawyers, litigants and judicial staff narrated their experiences of judicial corruption. It is fascinating reading. Here are some of the highlights.

Circuit Court Judge
When he took over from another judge lawyers, litigants and policemen were streaming to his home with gifts meant for his predecessor. The predecessor’s house was “like a mini market.”

High Court Judge
She explained how she got to know about court clerks receiving gifts on her behalf without passing it on. When she complained about their behaviour at the Complaints Unit, it gets nowhere and the clerk normally just gets transferred to another unit.

Court Clerk
She elaborated on how lawyers connived with the court registrar in determining which particular judge sat on which case. She also indicated that some lawyers pay staff of the judicial service to follow up on their paperwork.

Kaneshie District Court
A court clark described it as a mini market where customers troop to see the registrar and other court officials. Another clerk was overheard saying “As you know you do not go before a king empty handed!”, pointing to the registrar’s office.

Lawyers
“I have to give money before a registrar would put my case before a favourite judge.”

A story about a pastor who bought a saloon Vectra for a judge in a case involving his church.

If they want their documents quickly, typists have to be bribeb otherwise it takes a long time.

Lawyer taking bribe money for a judge and pocketing it because what the client wanted did not require a bribe.

Litigants
Lawyers ask for frequent adjournments so as to make more money from clients. This forces clients to pay clerks to fix dates for hearings.

Corruption is more prevalent at the stage of execution of judgment as clerks and bailiffs demand money in order to proceed.

Litigants frequently bribe judges, clerks and other officials for a favourable decision when cases have been pending for a long time.

Court officials drafting legal documents for the public is becoming common practise.

GII Recommendations: Progress or digression

The recommendations made by the GII in their Judicial Corruption Exercise Report can be summarised as follows:

Complaints Desks Every High Court in the country should have a complaints unit where key stakeholders can lodge complaints about the behaviour of judges, magistrates and judicial staff.

Computerisation of Courts The computerisation of courst should be expedited in order to reduce occurrences of those things that give rise to corruption such as the frequency of contact between litigants and or their lawyers and Judicial service Staff.

Enactment of the Judicial Code of Ethics Wide public education in conjunction with an enforceable code of ethics for judges, magistrates and judicial staff would reduce the occurrence of corruption and its various manifestations.

Proactive Role by the Ghana Bar Association Lawyers are key players of the judicial process and part and parcel of the problem of judicial corruption, but unethical conduct is not effectively checked and punished by the Bar Association.

Will these recommendations really solve the problems? Is this progress or digression? Is the only way not to go on a witch hunt and to prosecute as many as possible culprits in the shortest possible time? Is it not time for a “Scorpions” like unit that will pursue this issue relentlessly?

What do you think?

CHRAJ – Anti-corruption body without bite

The Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice “exists to enhance the scale of good governance, democracy, integrity, peace and social development by promoting, protecting and enforcing fundamental human rights and freedoms and administrative justice for all persons in Ghana.”

You can find more information on their website – see link above. Our mission is to determine if the CHRAJ is a watchdog with a lot of bark but no bite?

If you can make a contribution to get to an answer, please comment now.

“SFO promoting corruption and stimulating abuse of office.”

We once again refer to the dissertation published on Wikipedia. According to the author the SFO is in fact promoting corruption and stimulating the abuse of office. This is a serious allegation!

There is another anti-corruption body that is active in contemporary Ghana; it is called the SFO (Serious Fraud Office) and its role as an agency of the government – under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice – is to monitor, and possibly prosecute the ones committing serious frauds that would be financially or economically consequential to the state. This anti-corruption body has been severely criticised in the areas of its power to investigate and prosecute. The executive director has the possibility to personally decide to investigate anyone related to the police or anybody else. Someone can state that another is allegedly involved in serious acts of monetary loss for the state and the executive director can instantly freeze their assets and bank accounts.

The SFO seems to have an approach that could be understood to a certain extent as promoting corruption and stimulating abuse of office. This is because the executive director can decide from his own accord, and more importantly without any legal institutional control, to accuse that person of ‘serious and complex fraud’ and consequently deprive that person of freedom of movement and of access to his or her property. The executive director can buy information off citizens so as to use them in court cases. This means that impoverished Ghanaians are, in a way, encouraged to spy on their neighbours so as to give information in return of some cash to supplement their low salaries. The lack of institutional power to control decisions made privately by the executive director is the pinnacle of the institutionalisation of corruption within the Ghanaian society.

The problem with these kind of statements is the proof. Can anybody provide proof that the author’s allegation is true and valid?

“Effectiveness of the CHRAJ impeded.”

We have previously referred to a dissertation on Wikipedia. In this dissertation allegations are made that the anti-corruption institutions in Ghana are not really effective. This is what it has to say about the CHRAJ.

The CHRAJ and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) constitute the two main anti-corruption bodies actively existing in contemporary Ghana. The former has pretty much the same role as all other commissions of inquiry that have existed in the past, its role is to investigate deeply into all types of allegations of corruption and report their findings to the Attorney General who then decides of the procedures to be undertaken under legal requirements. It has nevertheless a role that was not given to any other precedent commissions, that is a mission to educate the public on their human rights and freedom. Its jurisdiction is limited because it cannot investigate certain matters which are, overall, to prevent it to ‘engage in unnecessary litigation and confrontation with the government of the day.’

There are two major problems that directly impede on the effectiveness of the CHRAJ.

The first one is one that has been consistently found in other commissions, which is its lack of power to enforce decisions based on their investigations and findings. For example, in 1996, it was investigating into some of the top officials’ assets and found enough ground to possibly bring those concerned in front of justice; but instead what happened is that they had to send a copy of their findings to someone else. That person would then have three months to act accordingly to the findings, and if not the complaints would go back to the Commission where they would not be able to go further in proceedings because of its incapacity to enforce their adverse findings. The government did act after these findings, but no more than what other governments would have done in the past because all they did was to issue a white paper on the report which was very courteously described ‘by some to be improper.’

The other major problem that the CHRAJ faces that has a direct effect on its autonomy is the fact that it is not financially autonomous. In theory, all of its expenses are paid by the Consolidated Fund but in practise its budget has to go through Parliament and then its allocation has to be made by the Ministry of Finance. This financial dependency has hampered its autonomy because it needs the executive branch of the government to survive. The Code of Conduct that is inscribed in the constitution is thus very hard to enforce completely and effectively due to the non-autonomous nature of the Commission. All the other commissions that existed previously had the same problem with autonomy and, that is why none of them were ever effective in bringing corruption levels down.

This makes one think. If the anti-corruption bodies are ineffective, where are we going to end?

“Government trying to combat corruption is very debatable.”

The following is a dissertation published on Wikipedia. It makes interesting reading! It concludes that:

• corruption is present widely and is accepted as a part of the society Ghanaians live in;
• there is very little will, even from the society itself to uproot the causes of corruption in their own country, thus helping the ones in government to be able to continue with their malevolent practises;
• the implementations of anti-corruption agencies have institutionalised corruption.

Your opinion on this?

In this dissertation, a definition of corruption has been made, assembling other definitions into a single clear and simple one, thus providing the reader with an understanding of what corruption is. The presence of corruption worldwide has been shown, as well as its high level of occurrence in sub-Saharan countries.

The different concepts and theories brought forward in this work have come together to conclude that corruption has to be understood not in individual terms but more as part of system that feeds and grows on corruption from the inside.

The historical perspective has been able to uncover details about corruption from before Ghana’s independence, and has shown that when Nkrumah inherited of the country, its monetary funds were plentiful and very healthy to say the least. Nkrumah dilapidated Ghana’s finances in his nine year rule, and was ousted by a coup because of the numerous allegations of corruption that surrounded him and his government. Successive governments have since then implemented a near incalculable number of commissions of inquiry and other anti-corruption bodies to investigate and discredit previous governments. It was found that by the start of the 1970s, an incipient culture of corruption existed in Ghana. This burgeoning culture grew steadily larger and larger throughout time, and it was found that the numerous anti-corruption bodies actually helped corruption grow to such proportions, even up until nowadays.

The anti-corruption agencies, their role and their effectiveness have been carefully scrutinised and criticised to finally conclude that they were an agent, if not a catalyst, in the institutionalisation of corruption within the Ghanaian society. They have been found to never have been entirely independent and that the incumbent governments could easily apply pressure on them so as to nullify their efforts. Finally, the study of the state of corruption in contemporary Ghana has brought up to light certain facts; firstly that corruption is present widely and is accepted as a part of the society Ghanaians live in, secondly that there is very little will, even from the society itself to uproot the causes of corruption in their own country, thus helping the ones in government to be able to continue with their malevolent practises.

Overall, this study has proven that the implementations of anti-corruption agencies have institutionalised corruption and that they have fooled to some extent people into believing that their governments were actually trying to combat corruption, which is very debatable.