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.

Corruption in Judiciary is real – GII

November 08, 2007 Accra, GNA – Corruption in the Judiciary is real and could not be considered as a perception, a report on Judicial Corruption Monitoring Exercise in Ghana has said.

The report was the result of a survey conducted by students from Faculties of Law at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology and University of Ghana. A total of 15 judges, 50 lawyers, 55 judicial staff and 85 litigants from Accra and Tema were interviewed while in Kumasi metropolis eight judges, 84 lawyers, 67 judicial staff and 65 litigants were interviewed. Ghana Integrity Initiative, (GII) a local chapter of Transparency International and German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) jointly undertook the research, which focused on land and commercial cases.

The report was intended to establish the “validity” or accuracy of the widely held perception that the judiciary was corrupt. The questions touched on degree of perceived corruption by the judicial staff, attempted instances of influence and interference of judicial staff by people, Judges knowledge of code of ethics, judicial staff views on impropriety in relation to their work.

The report brought up issues on missing dockets, delays in delivering judgments, frequent adjournments and absence of lawyers among other issues. The report based on a qualitative and quantitative research in Accra, Tema and Kumasi actors were aware of existence of corruption and had in some cases, they themselves experienced it in one way or other.

Mr Vitus Azeem Executive Secretary of GII who discussed the report noted that in Kumasi some of the litigants were dissatisfied with delayed in delivery of judgments, others also did not want to use the court because they had spent more than the amount involved in a case. Mr Azeem said 36 per cent had no trust in the law courts while other respondents complained about failure and lateness of sitting of some Judges. He said the report called for urgent steps to be taken to institute internal measures within the judiciary to check the incidence of corruption.

It also called for more complaint desks in every High Court in the country so that key stakeholders could lodge complainants about the behaviours of Judges, Magistrates and Judicial staff. Further more the computerization of the court should be expedited in order to reduce the frequency of contact between litigants or their lawyers and judicial staff while enforcing the judicial code of ethics. The report recommended to the Ghana Bar Association to begin playing a proactive role in regulating the conducts of lawyers since they were key in the judicial process.

GNA

“The scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary people suffer.”

Corruption is undermining judicial systems around the world, denying citizens access to justice and the basic human right to a fair and impartial trial, sometimes even to a trial at all. As aptly stated by Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International, “Equal treatment before the law is a pillar of democratic societies. When courts are corrupted by greed or political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary people suffer. “Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard, while the guilty act with impunity.”

The above quotation can be found in the Press Release by the Ghana Integrity Initiative when they launched the Global Corruption Report and previewed the Ghana Judicial Corruption Monitoring Exercise. The full press release can be viewed here Ghana Integrity Initiative Press Release.

If you want a future for your children and their children in Ghana, you have to act. Now! Let the ordinary people not suffer, and let the voice of the innocent gets heard. Report judicial corruption now. Just post a reply to this item and give us the necessary information so that we can stop the rot.

Judicial Council To Check Corruption In The System

The Chief Justice Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood last Wednesday said the Judicial Council would use all available resources at its disposal to ensure that Judicial corruption was reduced to the barest minimum. She said the judiciary would also draw knowledge and experiences of judiciaries worldwide and the integrity of best practices and benchmarks of other institutions to enhance its image.

Mrs Justice Wood was speaking at the launch of Ghana Integrity Initiative’s (GII) report on “Corruption Monitoring Exercise in Ghana” in Accra. The report based on administering of questionnaires to Judicial staff, judges, lawyers, litigants in Accra/Tema and Kumasi aimed at finding out to which extent judicial corruption was close to reality and find remedy to the canker.

The report concentrated on cases on land and commercial litigation. Mrs Justice Wood said corruption posed a threat to judicial legitimacy and limited their capacity to effectively fulfil their constitutional mandate. She observed that corruption had wrecked the continent and urged all and sundry to dedicate themselves to fighting the canker.

The Chief Justice said she found it a “painful duty” to address the launch of a report that indicted the judiciary and concluded that the phenomenon of judicial corruption was not a perception but real. She noted that there were many honourable men and women on the bench who had over the years served the country tirelessly and had not relented themselves to any untoward practices.

Mrs Justice Wood admitted however, that there were a few of them who had dragged the name of the judiciary in the mud but urged the hardworking ones not to “loose heart over the report which unfortunately has put everyone in one basket”. She reminded judges that high integrity was crucial to their existence and survival of constitutional democracy.

The Chief Justice told the judges that government had improved the conditions of the judiciary adding, “This gives no excuse whatsoever for any judge to misconduct himself or herself on the basis of poor conditions of service”.

“I have already started enforcing rigorously the rule and these would be based purely on integrity, industry, independence and not on some other consideration such as relationship, friendship or kinship,” the Chief Justice said. She appealed to government to address the service conditions of the staff of the judicial service and said to earn promotion and appointment to the bench, integrity was going to be used as the number one criterion. Mrs Justice Wood stressed the need to develop an effective comprehensive integrity programme and action plan and asked for cooperation from all.

She indicated further that the judiciary was into negotiations with an international institution for sponsorship and training in Judicial Integrity and Ethics for Judges and all levels of staff. “Violation of and non compliance with our laws and our code of conduct would not be taken lightly, but be appropriately dealt with”.

To dissuade court officials and litigants who were determined from corrupting the judicial system, she said the judiciary had designed brochures and posters with clear mission and ethics based value statements aimed at discouraging the practice of bribe payment to judges and court staff.

Mrs Justice Wood entreated members of the Ghana Bar Association and the public to desist from corrupting judges and staff.

Dr Audrey Gadzekpo, GII Board Chairperson noted that issues about corruption remained controversial as most Ghanaians believed that it existed but were not certain about its dimension with regard to its prevalence in governmental institutions and agencies.

She explained that GII chose the judiciary because it was one of the most important institutions in the fight against corruption adding “the judicial power of the state remains a key resource in the development and enforcement of anti-corruption policies.

“A corrupt judiciary cannot preside over the prosecution of other corrupt public official,” she said. However, Dr Gadzekpo said to be able to hold other public officials accountable, the judiciary itself must possess the requisite moral and ethical integrity as well as financial, technical and human resources.

Dr Mechthild Runger, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) Programme Manager on Good Governance said prevention of corruption was not a matter of prosecuting individual perpetrators, as many named underlying causes were structural and institutional in nature.

Source: GNA
Posted: 09/11/07

Judicial Monitoring

In the GII Report  an anonymous reviewer made the following suggestion:

“I would suggest that ‘judicial monitoring’ especially of judges, be implemented as a way of checking judicial corruption. Funds should be made available for this purpose. Consultants should be hired yearly to review, at the end  of every legal, at least ten (10) cases conducted by each judge in the year. The cases should be selected by  interviewing a few litigants and lawyers conducting cases before the  particular court.

The names of such consultants should not be disclosed and the files should be requested by the registry for the transmission to consultants. The consultant(s) report should be confidential and reviewed by the judicial council. Action then should be taken as appropriate.”

This sounds like a good idea. But then, will it ever happen?

Corrupt Judicial Staff

Over fifty six (56) percent of Judicial Staff interviewed (GII Report) said there have been instances where persons have attempted to influence or interfere with their exercise of their official functions. However, over sixty (60%) indicated that they were aware of instances in the life of a fellow judicial officer where attempts had been made to influence him/her to compromise the exercise of judicial functions.

Almost half (49%) of the staff interviewed admitted that they have been used by litigants to influence or interfere wth the exercise of judicial functions and that they were aware of other colleagues who had been used by a party to a suit to influence the decision of judges.

Strikingly, more than forty eight (48) percent of the judicial staff interviewed admitted that they were aware of colleagues who worked with lawyers in handling cases for clients / litigants having been used to influence / interfere with the course of justice.