By Davies Saina Kalepa. Lusaka, Zambia. 2012
RESEARCH PROPOSAL - SYNOPSIS
INTRODUCTION
There have been
many anti-corruption attempts in Zambia targeting the Public Sector, but with
very little success. Despite the many efforts and good laws (such as the Anti-Corruption
Commission Act) meant to fight corruption, incidences of corruption seems to be
on the increase. Reports of the Office of the Auditor General have continued to
reveal high levels of corruption, and a number of corruption cases are in
courts of law, and this despite the many convictions of former public workers
in the last ten years.
Literature
elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa reveals that many anti-corruption institutions
and integrity systems, although some have had notable success, have not been able
to eliminate or significantly reduce corruption
in Africa. The
picture is a bit different in Western Countries (North America and Western
Europe) where very low levels of corruption exist due to strong institutions
and political will.
Empirical evidence suggests that although
strong enforcement and monitoring are needed, they have little long-term effect
if the basic conditions that encourage corruption and payoffs are not addressed.
Thus anti-corruption efforts should focus on making substantial improvements in
the overall efficiency, fairness, and legitimacy of the state, by
addressing those
underlying incentives to receive or pay bribes through fundamental reforms.
What is emerging
is that anti-corruption initiatives should go beyond creating integrity systems
and tightening systems of ex-post controls to fundamentally changing the way
government should do business, to the extent
that incentives
to receive or pay bribes are reduced or eliminated. Transparent International
rates Zambia among countries where corruption is highly prevalence. It is
difficult to deny these pronouncements taking into account the increased number
of convictions and corruption cases before the courts of Law or those under
investigations.
Zambia’s
socio-economic and political reforms and programmes since independence and in
recent times after the reintroduction of multi-party democracy in 1990 have
consistently recognized the need for institutions of good governance measures.
These measures include accountability and transparency, and seeks to reduce the
harmful effects of institutional and legal weaknesses that provide opportunities
for behaviours and practices that can undermine the country’s socio-economic
development and political enhancements.
These measures
involve institutional reform, institution building and strengthening; legal
reform; and public awareness campaigns undertaken by both public bodies and
civil society organisations. These anti-corruption measures, however, have most
often been done in isolation, uncoordinated, inactionable, and unfavourable
manner. Consequently, their impact on preventing and combating corruption in
the country has not been adequately commensurate with the efforts and fiscal
resources involved.
This research will
attempt to identify the challenges and impact of corruption in the Public
Sector on the economic development of the country.
BACKGROUND
Corruption is a
contextual issue and evolves over time.
In the case of Zambia, it seems to have evolved over four phases and over three
decades as the environment underwent clear patterns of change both in political
and economic terms, and gave rise to corruption.
1964 to Early 1970s.
According to
available literature, this was a period of relatively no corruption, which was
generally rejected or shunned. Soon after independence, nationalism and
patriotism were very strong. The economy was still strong and
stable, as world
prices for copper, a leading foreign exchange earner then, were still good.
Generally, unemployment was low, and goods and services were readily available.
It is claimed that during this period the government was efficient in delivering
services, as government machinery largely functioned well; public officers were
adequately remunerated; and employment in public service, promotion, and
discipline in public offices were not based on political considerations or
influenced by irregular means—they were based on merit, and pay structures were
commensurate with responsibility.
The political
leadership was strongly against corruption, and this was supported by a strong
national moral tone against corruption. Public officers observed high ethical
standards of avoiding conflict-of-interest situations, by not engaging in
business deals or arrangements for personal gain. Furthermore, corruption was
largely rejected or shunned by citizens and society. Consequently, corruption
was dealt with like any other petty crime under the penal code. Other than the
police, there was no other organ specifically charged with the responsibility
of dealing with corruption cases.
Early 1970s to 1990.
By this period, Zambia
had become a one-party state under United National Independence Party. There
were no
opposition
parties, which meant that no genuine competitive ideas on the management of the
economy could emerge. Politically, Zambia was more in line with the so-called
eastern bloc of leftist nations, and had adopted socialist tendencies in the
management of the economy. The economy was to a large extent centralized, and
the state
was in charge of
strategic economic and commercial enterprises. Key industries, factories, and
commercial enterprises were in the hands of the state. In the absence of
opposition in the parliament, there was no strong
oversight nor
effective restraint on the executive in the management of state enterprises and
the economy as a whole.
Against the
backdrop of socialist tendencies in the management of the state and its
economy, not necessarily effectively and efficiently, the Zambian economy
deteriorated over the years. With a narrow export base on
copper, the
economy became increasingly vulnerable to changes in world prices for the
commodity. A mounting external debt burden, increasing budget deficits, and
lower GDP growth rates all exerted pressure on the
economy and on
inflation rates. Shortages and long queues became common as demand for goods
and services exceeded supply.
It was at this
time that corruption, and concerns about it, began to emerge. However, the
Kaunda government responded in 1973 by introducing a leadership code, which was
included in the constitution of Zambia
and that of
UNIP. The code covered all persons in the employment of UNIP (the only party
then), and in the government, local authorities, trade unions, state
enterprises, and institutions of higher learning.
The code barred
leaders in many respects, and made earning extra income while in office
illegal, barred public officers from entering into business arrangements for
personal gain, and barred leaders from owning
property outside
Zambia or owning more than one piece of land or more than ten acres of land
within Zambia. Public leaders were not permitted to receive gifts or to use
insider information for private benefit, or to commit
crimes of abuse of
office.
All leaders were
required to declare their assets to the committee that oversaw the leadership
code, within three months of assuming office, or whenever they earned extra
income. The leadership committee was appointed
by and reported
to the president. Penalties were harsh, and could result in dismissal from
office.
The code did not
have investigation and prosecution powers, and had little effect as a deterrent
against corruption. Subsequently, the little-known Special Investigation Team
on Economy and Trade (SITET), a forerunner
to the country’s
anticorruption commission, was constituted, but it had no meaningful impact.
Because of the ineffectiveness of SITET, the UNIP government in 1980 passed the
Corrupt Practices Act to deal specifically
with the problem
of mounting corruption. Unlike previous attempts to combat corruption in the
past, the act
broadened
corruption to include the private sector, and increased penalties for
corruption. The act created the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), and gave it
the power to investigate and prosecute corruption through the
traditional
judiciary.
The ACC and its
director-general, appointed at the discretion of the president, reported
directly to the
president. In
many ways, the commission was not independent of the executive, as its operations
depended on the whims and caprices of the executive.
1991 to 2001.
Following the opening
of political space in 1990, elections were held under a multiparty system in
1991 and President Kaunda lost power to Chiluba; similarly, the MMD won a landslide
victory over UNIP.
This did not
help in strengthening parliamentary democracy and oversight role of the
legislature.
Chiluba’s
ten-year reign, from November 1991 to 2001, is “best remembered” for the worst
corruption Zambia had ever experienced. In the earlier years of the Chiluba
regime, the leadership code was scrapped and
public leaders
were allowed to own and run businesses while in office. They were also
permitted to earn extra income by whatever means while in office, and it became
common practice for ministers to run legal practices actively while in office.
Restrictions on property ownership were also removed.
This period is
also credited with increased political corruption in the form of patronage in
appointments to strategic public and political offices; vote buying; misuse of
public resources for individual and party gain, and
outright use of
public funds to advance party cause were common. Both petty and bureaucratic
corruption were widespread, and as corruption became an easily and widely
acceptable practice in society, corruption became more pervasive.
In certain literatures, corruption in Zambia
at that time could be likened to corruption in Hong Kong in the 1960s, when citizens
had three options: “getting into the bus” (actively participating in corruption),
or “running alongside the bus” (being a bystander, not interfering with the
system), or “standing in front of the bus” (reporting or resisting
corruption),
although the latter option was not one for the ordinary.
Notably during
this phase, the number of anticorruption laws that were enacted is testimony to
the high level of corruption in the country. These laws were unfortunately
supply-driven: forced on the executive by the international
community. For
example, the Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct Act was passed in
1994, followed by the Anti-Corruption Commission Act in 1996, which replaced
the Corruption Practices Act of 1980. Also in 1996, but under pressure from
donors and civil society, the MMD government adopted the Electoral Code of
Conduct Regulations, followed shortly in 2001 by passage of the Prohibition and
Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
While these
efforts seem to indicate political will to combat corruption at the highest
level, the results were dismal. These initiatives were, so it is alleged, merely
to appease the international community. There
was simply no political will to combat corruption.
2002
to 2010.
The MMD
government, under President Levy Mwanawasa, the lawyer, rode on the back of the
anticorruption crusade, and is generally claimed to have been committed to
anticorruption. Much as the elections of 2001 suffered several electoral
malpractices and corrupt activities according to reports, the leadership
anchored its claim to power on the basis of zero tolerance of corruption.
In 2002, the
government adopted a policy of “Zero
Tolerance to Corruption” and the Task Force on Corruption was established to
bring to book and prosecute all those that were involved in the plunder of
national resources in the previous government. Considerable achievements were
made in the fight against corruptions during this period, with the government
receiving international praise. However, reports indicate that most of these
successes were short lived after the Rupia Banda government (2008 to 2011)
removed the Abuse of Authority Clause from the ACC Act, leading to wide spread corruption yet again. The
Micheal Sata government which took over power in 2011 has since promised to
strengthen the fight against corruption, and have taken back the Abuse of
Authority Clause back to Parliament for reinstatement in the ACC Act.
The civil service.
The Public
Service Commission is responsible for appointments, promotions, and discipline
of all civil servants in the government. The head of the civil service is the
secretary of the cabinet, who is an appointee of the president.
In ministries,
the most senior civil servant is the permanent secretary, who is the
controlling officer. The secretary of the cabinet supervises all permanent
secretaries, also presidential appointees. Theoretically, all permanent secretaries
and other civil servants are supposed to be professionals and nonpartisan.
There are
serious allegations that the civil service has been politicized by presidential
appointments.
Qualifications
for these appointments have not been specified. Furthermore, the lack of job
security has also undermined political neutrality of permanent secretaries and
senior civil servants. Second, there are reported cases of civil servants
having actively participated in partisan politics in the past, and this has
helped to entrench politicization of the civil service.
Procurement of public goods and services.
Procurement of public goods
and services has been prone to corruption in Zambia, and consequently
the Zambia
National Tender Board Act (now Zambia Public Procurement Authority Act) was
passed. The
ZNTBA
established the Zambia National Tender Board to regulate, monitor, and control
national procurement of public goods and services. The act provides for the
establishment of lower tender committees in ministries/
departments, in
lower government offices, but all under the supervision of the national board through
a central tender board.
Members of the board are appointed by the
president. For daily operations of the national board, there are several tender
committees in government departments and parastatal bodies, including provincial
tender committees, but the central tender board is the most powerful, and meets
once every week to monitor other committees and handle
major
procurements.
It is believed
that the board is not independent of the executive, who could influence decisions
in the procurement processes. Such influences could cascade downward to the
central tender board and other lower tender committees in ministries, as well
as in local government units.
Gaps in the judiciary.
The retirement
age for superior court judges is constitutionally fixed at sixty years, but the
president may extend tenure of any judge for an additional seven years without
any ratification. This has been alleged to provide a fertile ground for
political patronage and for compromising judicial independence.
Second, the
president can effect promotions in the judiciary without recourse to the
Judicial Service Commission, because, the president is not bound by advice or
recommendations of any commission. Similarly, although the salaries of superior
court judges are protected by the constitution, salary adjustments (increases)
are at the pleasure of the president.
Forms
of Corruption
From preliminary
interviews of various personalities and civil societies, for example
Transparency International–Zambia and review of various literatures on
corruption in Zambia, three categories of corruption are common. First is
so-called political corruption, which is election-based or election-related
corruption, including
political
patronage. Political corruption, in the context of elections, involved misuse
of public resources to fund elections, commission of electoral irregularities,
or misuse of public resources to advance individual and/ or party interests in
electoral outcomes. This has included political patronage in order to secure
certain public offices.
The second
category of corruption is so-called grand corruption, largely committed by
bureaucrats, involving large amounts of money through procurements, misappropriation
of public funds, kickbacks from privatization of state enterprises, kickbacks
from government agreements or contracts, and the like. In certain other
literature reviewed, this category of corruption is sometimes referred to as
“bureaucratic corruption,” because mainly bureaucrats or public servants
perpetuate it.
The last
category of corruption, but by no means harmless, is so-called petty
corruption, which is perhaps the most visible and is encountered by ordinary
citizens as they go about their daily lives. It has been observed by
Transparency
International–Zambia that this type of corruption is widespread in many public
offices and institutions, such as the police service, the courts, immigration,
revenue, national registration and pensions, and
passport
issuance.
Overview
of Corruption in Zambia
The new cases
being unearthed, and the record number of corruption cases in the courts of law
is a pure indication that the fight against corruption is far from being won or
reduced. The latest Auditor General’s report also revealed wide spread
corruption and abuse of authority in the Public Sector. This research will seek
to identify the challenges in the fight against corruption, and establish the
impact of the said corruption in the public sector on the economic development
of Zambia.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
There has
been a lot of efforts directed towards
fighting corruption in Zambia. A number of laws have been put in place, and a
number of actors both governmental and nongovernmental organisations have come
forward in order to help fight the scourge. Despite all these efforts,
corruption in the Public Sector is reported to be on the increase. This
research proposal seeks to find out the impact and effects of corruption in the
public sector on the economy of the country.
OBJECTIVES
General
Objective. To establish
the challenges and Impact of Corruption in the Public Sector on the Economic Development
of Zambia.
Specific
Objectives.
1.
To establish the main actors in the
fight against corruption in Zambia.
2.
To review the current strategies in the
fight against corruption in the public sector.
3.
To identify the challenges in the fight
against corruption in Zambia.
4.
To establish the Impact of corruption
in the Public Sector on the Zambian economy.
5.
To recommend measures to help in
effectively fighting corruption in Public Sector.
JUSTIFICATION
The public sector has the responsibility of implementing
government programmes. I doing so, they are required to account for all
resources under their jurisdiction, and prudently commit all resources as per
budget to the benefit of the nation. If such resources are abused due to
corruption in the public sector, the country will not see the much needed
development.
The Auditor General’s reports have continued to review
wide spread corruption in the public sector. This is backed by reports by
Transparency International and corruption related arrests being made by the Law
Enforcement Agencies.
A number Senior Government Officials have been arrested
to answer corruption charges in the recent past, with some cases successfully
prosecuted. Since all government resources are well budgeted for, such abuse
implies inefficiencies, which surely should have an impact and effects on the
economic development of the country. Such corrupt activities need to be well
investigated to find out the impact on the economy. This would help decision
makers find lasting solutions to reducing corruption for the benefit of the
nation and the future of the country.
The absence of Corruption will lead to:
1.
Poverty reduction.
2.
Good governance.
3.
Improved citizens’ access to public resources
and respect for human rights.
4.
Effective and efficient government delivery
of social services to the citizens.
5.
Promotion of social-economic and political
development.
6.
Economic development in general.
LIMITATIONS
OF THE STUDY
This study will look at available information with major
actors and review available literature, and will concentrate in Lusaka due to
the time factor and financial implications. All interviews will be done within
Lusaka, and all questionnaires will be distributed to selected actors in
Lusaka. Since most government departments and NGOs involved in the fight
against corruption are headquartered in Lusaka, it is assumed that the results
would take a national character.
The study will only concentrate on the government
budgetary expenditure on government projects and award of contracts in the
procurement of goods, works and services. Whereas activities of government
agencies and authorities will be investigated, government aided institutions,
State Enterprises and Public Private Partnerships will not form part of the
study.
This researcher is mindful that some of
the target organisations may treat some of the required information as confidential,
but it is hoped that with increased transparency in the government resource
management including award of contracts and financial control, such withholding
of information would be negligible and will not affect the overall results.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this paper, the following words/terms
and concepts will mean as indicated:
Corruption. All
actions and activities where the actor(s) gets a personal benefit, which they
are otherwise not entitled to, by taking advantage of their office, position or
influence. This includes application of public resources for personal benefit
or any other manner that would constitute abuse of authority by the laws of
Zambia.
Public
Sector. Includes all government ministries, agencies,
authorities and departments.
Private
Sector. Means all enterprises in which the government has no
stake.
Legislation.
Acts of Parliament of the Republic of Zambia or Legal government directives on
corruption and related activities.
Flaws.
Weaknesses in the legislation.
Common
citizens. Persons not holding public offices or
working for agencies or organisations involved in the fight against corruption.
ABBREVIATIONS
ACC – Anti-Corruption Commission
DEC – Drug Enforcement Commission
MP – Member of Parliament
TI – Transparency International
ZPPA – Zambia Public Procurement Authority
ZRA – Zambia Revenue Authority
IFMIS – Integrated Financial
Management Information System
PEMFA – Public Expenditure Management and Financial
Accountability
MOF – Ministry of Finance
LITERATURE
REVIEW
In due recognition of corruption prevention,
the government of Zambia in 2003 set itself on a task of collecting baseline
data on corruption in the country. This endeavor culminated into the National
Governance Baseline Survey Report of August 2004. The report shows that about
two thirds of the respondents considered corruption to be one of the major
problems facing the country.
Prior to
independence, the first law that applied to corruption prevention in Zambia was
the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916. It was cited together with the public
body’s Corrupt Practices Act 1889, and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.
In
Post-Independence Zambia, the legal provisions on corruption were first
contained in the Penal Code, Cap 146, Chapter X. This legislation was concerned
with corruption offences by persons employed in the public service, and did not
cover corruption in the private bodies or agents.
In 1973, the
Leadership Code, for leaders, which constituted Part IV of the Republican Constitution,
was introduced. The Leadership Code, First Schedule, Regulation 2, covered all
persons in the service of the party (UNIP), the Government, Local Authorities,
Statutory Corporations including higher Institutions of Learning, any
commissions established by Law, and ZCTU and affiliates. The Code required that
persons covered by it , declare extra income to the leadership committee
appointed by the President. Leaders also had to declare their Assets within
three months of assuming office. They were prohibited from receiving gifts,
abusing their office and were not allowed to use information acquired while in
office for private gain. Failure to comply with the code led to dismissal from
office. The Leadership Code was abolished in November 2002.
The principle
legislation enacted to combat corruption in the post-independence era, however,
is the Corrupt Practices Act No 14 of 1980. This legislation made corruption an
offence in both the public and private sectors. Further, it provided for
establishment of a separate body, the ACC and in addition mandated the
Commission to undertake corruption prevention and education programmes.
In 1996, the
Corrupt Practices Act was replaced by the Anti-Corruption Act No 42. This Act
is the main body to combat corruption in Zambia.
The
Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct Act (Chapter 16 of the Laws of
Zambia) was passed to establish a code of conduct for the Vice President,
Ministers and Deputy Ministers. The Act provides that in the event of the
breach of the code the member concerned shall lose his seat in the National
Assembly.
The Electoral
Commission Act No 24 of 1996 embodies the legal framework for conduct of
elections in Zambia and seeks to curb corruption during the electoral process.
The
Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act No 14 of 2001 seeks to
provide for the disclosure of information on suspicion of money laundering
activities by supervisory authorities and regulated institutions, the forfeiture
of property by persons convicted of money laundering, local and international
cooperation in investigations, prosecution and other legal processes of
prohibiting and preventing money laundering.
Bank of
Zambia Anti-Money Laundering Directives 2004, require a regulated institution
to put in place anti-money laundering measures and adopt such practices as
unnecessary for the detection and
prevention of money laundering.
In 2000, Transparency
International rated Zambia among the most corrupt countries in the world ( Source
Book. http://www.transparency.org/sourcebook/11.html).
And in the same year, the United Nations Global Programme Against Corruption
(GPAC) ( Anti-Corruption Tool Kit (CIPP-15), vol. 1. November
2002) observed high corruption levels in Aub Sahara Africa including Zamiba.
Anti-Corruption
Commission. Has continued to report corruption in the Public Sector. In 2004,
the set up a strategi plan to fight corruption with a view to reducing
corruption to acceptable levels (Annual Report. 2004. Strategic Plan,
2004–2008).There was political will at that time, and so, the plan was
emplemented, resulting inn arrests of some high level politicians and
government officials.
In their book on
corruption, Heidenheimer, Arnold J., and Michael Johnson (eds.). (2001. Political
Corruption:
Concepts and
Context. Third Edition, New Brunswick/London, Transaction Publishers).
The reported wide spread political corruption in Africa, Zambia inclusive, and
how the fight faced a lot of challenges. Involvement of politicians mean many
cases going unreported and investigations lacking political will. Pronouncement
of the fight were only meant to appease the international community.
Office of the
Auditor-General Reports on the Accounts in government departments have
continued to reveal abuses of authority by government officials in Africa. Rose-Ackerman,
and Susan reported similar observations (Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption
and Government: Cases, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Other reports
confirming high corruption levels in Zambia include:
1. Transparency International–Zambia.
2001. State of Corruption Report. 2002. State of Corruption Report.
2. 2003.
National Integrity Systems: Country Study Report. US General Accounting
Office. 2004. Report to the Sub-Committee on African Affairs, Committee on
Foreign Relations.
3. Munalula,
M.M. 2002. “A Position Paper on the Effectiveness of Government Watchdog
Institutions in Zambia.” August 2002.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
After studying the current trends and reviewing various
literature on corruption in Zambia, it is clear that there is wide spread
corruption in the country. Whereas the
fight is on, questions remain to be answered as to why many more people are
still engaging in the scourge. I intend to answer the following questions:
1.
Who are the major actors in the
corruption fight in Zambia?
2.
What challenges are there in the fight
against corruption in Zambia?
3.
Why is there wide spread corruption in
the Public Sector?
4.
What is the impact of corruption in the
Public Sector on the economic development of the country?
METHODOLOGY
The scope of the study will take the following form:
1.
Review of available literature on corruption
and corrupt activities in Zambia.
2.
Collection of information through
questionnaires and face to face interviews with major stakeholders including
ACC, DEC, TI, Zambia Police and Media Organisations.
3.
Obtaining information from randomly selected
persons in the Government Departments, NGOs, and Specialist Consultants.
The methods of data collection will comprise:
1.
Face to face (interviews)
2.
Group interface.
3.
Questionnaire (See Annex A to this Synopsis).
SAMPLING
In order to come up with a balanced
report, key stakeholders in the fight against corruption will be contacted, and
key persons in such organisations will be given questionnaires to answer, whereas
face to face interviews will be conducted with selected middlem management
staff to get their views. Target organisations include the ACC, TI, Lusaka High
Court, DEC, Electrol Commission of Zambia, Zambia Police, Office of the Auditor
General, Zambia Institute of Purchasing and Supply, Zambia Institute of
Chartered Accountants, Ministry of Justice and United Nations Development
Programme.
Selected members of the general public
from diverse back grounds will also be given questionnaires to hear their views
on the state of corruption in the Public Sector. Known commentators from
academia and NGOs will also be interview or given questionnaires for expert opinion.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis will be done with the use of a mixed
methodology (quantitatively and qualitatively).
The matrices, charts, tables and other common tools may be used. This
researcher will pare down the abundant subjective data that has been gathered
and determine what will be useful variables in qualitative data analysis.
TASK STRUCTURE
The first task will be to collect data, expected to take
four weeks. This will be followed by compilation and analysis of the said data
and making of the draft research paper, to take six weeks. It will then be
edited, and this process is expected to be done within two weeks’ time. This
will bring the total time to twelve weeks (three months).
BUDGET
In order to successfully carry out the research, the
following budget will apply:
Transport Costs
Government
Departments 250
000
NGOs 200
000
General
Public 300
000
Cost of Materials
Stationery 500
000
Processing
Information 150 000
Data Collection
Assistant 500
000
Contingency 100
000
Total K 2 000 000
CONCLUSION
Corruption is a
multifaceted issue that pervades all aspects of the public and private sectors,
and cannot be addressed through legal reforms and enforcements without tackling
the underlying incentives for corruption and reducing payoffs (increasing the
cost of corruption) to the individual. This therefore means that the government
needs to develop a comprehensive anticorruption strategy, based on its own
circumstances (corruption has largely a contextual history) before attempting
to address the problem. Inevitably, the strategy will require reforms spanning
from empowering civil society, reforming public sector management and finance,
reforming the private sector
to become more
competitive, reforming the political environment to become more competitive and
more transparent, and controlling the powers of the executive and making it
more transparent and accountable.
Zambia’s
socio-economic and political reforms and programmes since independence and in
recent times after the reintroduction of multi-party democracy in 1990 have
consistently recognized the need for institutions of good governance measures.
These measures include accountability and transparency, and seeks to reduce the
harmful effects of institutional and legal weaknesses that provide
opportunities for behaviours and practices that can undermine the country’s
socio-economic development and political enhancements.
These measures
involve institutional reform, institution building and strengthening; legal
reform; and public awareness campaigns undertaken by both public bodies and
civil society organisations. These anti-corruption measures, however, have most
often been done in isolation, uncoordinated, inactionable, and unfavourable
manner. Consequently, their impact on preventing and combating corruption in
the country has not been adequately commensurate with the efforts and fiscal
resources involved.
Many challenges
are being faced in the fight against corruption in the Public Sector.
Implementation of such programmes as IFMIS and PEMFA to improve financial
management and accountability in th government are yet to yield the required
results.
Corruption in
the Public Sector impacts negatively on the economic development of the
country. Concerned citizens and organisations should put hands together in this
fight.
REFERENCES
Anti-Corruption
Act of 1996
Authontication
of Documentation Act, Chapter 75
Bank
of Zambia Anti-Money Laundering Directives 2004
Electoral
Act (Chapter 13 of the Laws of Zambia)
National
Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 12
Parliament
and Ministerial Code of Conduct (Chapter of the Laws of Zambia)
Penal
Code (Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia)
Privatisation
Act 1992
Prohibition
and Prevention of Money Laundering Act No 14 of 2001
Public
Finance Act No 15 of 2004
Secrecy
of Corruption, JC Kasamanda (Capt)
Zambia
Public Procurement Authority Act
United Nations
Global Programme Against Corruption (GPAC). 2002. Anti-Corruption Tool Kit (CIPP-15),
vol. 1. November.
Anti-Corruption
Commission. 2001. Annual Report.. 2004. Strategic Plan, 2004–2008.
Anti-Corruption
Commission Act. No. 2, 1996. Constitution of the Republic of Zambia, 24 August
1991, Amended 1996.
Heidenheimer,
Arnold J., and Michael Johnson (eds.). 2001. Political Corruption: Concepts
and Context. Third Edition, New Brunswick/London, TransactionPublishers.
Office of the
Auditor-General. 2002. Report on the Accounts. December 31.
Rose-Ackerman,
Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government: Cases, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Transparency
International–Zambia. 2001. State of Corruption Report. . 2002. State
of Corruption Report.
2003. National
Integrity Systems: Country Study Report. US General Accounting Office.
2004. Report to the Sub-Committee on African Affairs, Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Munalula, M.M.
2002. “A Position Paper on the Effectiveness of Government Watchdog
Institutions in Zambia.” August 2002.
CORRUPTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
QUESTIONNAIRE 1
Questionnaire to be Administered to ACC Personnel
Country:
Zambia
Agency:
Anti-Corruption Commission
1. When was the
Agency established?
(Month) (Year)
2. What
were the main reasons for setting up the ACC?
3. What
is the enabling instrument (legislative act, etc.) for its establishment?
4.
6. How would you
describe the orientation of the activities of ACC?
(a) Pro-active
(b) Reactive
(c) Both
pro-active and reactive
8. How would you
describe the level of effectiveness of ACC’s operations
in each of the
identified activity areas (please tick as appropriate):
( Indicate: Very
High, High, Fair, Low, or Very Low)
a. Research
b. Training
c. Investigation
d. Prosecution
e. Advocacy
9. Since its
inception, how many cases have been
(a) reported to ACC
(b) under
investigation
(c) successfully
prosecuted
(d) discharged
and acquitted by the court
(e) adjudged as
lacking merit by the court
(f) are still
being prosecuted
10. What are the
major factors impinging positively or negatively upon the
overall
performance of ACC?
(Indicate: Positive
or Negative)
a. Level of
political will on the part of leadership
b. Level of
national integrity in general
c. Willingness
of citizens to voluntarily
report cases of
corruption.
d. Legal
environment
e. Legislative
environment.
f. Willingness
of stakeholders to provide relevant
information for
prosecuting reported cases.
g. Enforcement
of judgment on proven cases.
h. Others
(please specify)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
11(a). How would
you describe the level of real independence of ACC?
(i) Very High
(ii) High
(iii) Fair
(iv) Low
(v) Very Low
11(b). If low or
less, what are the major causes of lack of very high level
of independence?
(i) Intervention
by Executive arm of government
(ii)
Intervention by Legislative arm of government
(iii) Poor
funding or lack of financial independence
(iv) Lack of
cooperation from law enforcement agencies
(v) Lack of
authority/power to compel people to give
required
evidence
(vi) Others
(please specify)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
12. Which
institution plays an oversight role over the activities of ACC?
(i) Executive
arm of government
(ii) Parliament
(iii) Others
(please specify)……………………………………………………………………………………………
13. In your
opinion, how do the activities of the following and other related
public sector
institutions relate to that of ACC (e.g., do they complement,
overlap or
conflict with ACC’s activities?)
Complement Overlap
Conflict With
(i) Drug
Enforcement Commission
(ii) Task Force
on Corruption
(iii) Zambia Police
(iv) Bank of
Zambia – Anti Money Laundering Unit
14. Please
describe briefly the major capacity constraints of ACC and your
suggestions on
how to overcome them.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank
you.
Responding Officer (Optional):
Name:
Appointment:
Signature:
Date:
Identity details.
Questions
to be Administered to Randomly Selected Individuals and Members of Law
Enforcement Agencies.
CORRUPTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
QUESTIONNAIRE 2
Questionnaire to be Administered to Specialists, Randomly Selected Individuals and
Members of Law Enforcement Agencies
1.
You have been randomly selected to take
part in the survey for the above-mentioned subject. The information is purely
required for an Academic Research Paper, and therefore, all information will be
treated as confidential and there is no liability for the information so
provided. You need not provide personal identity details.
SECTION
ONE
2. PARTICULARS (OPTIONAL)
a. Your
Age: ……………………………………………………………………...
b. Occupation:
…………………………………………………………………….
c. Education
Standard: ……………………………………………………………
SECTION
TWO
3.
QUESTIONS:
Answer the following questions giving as much details as you can.
a. What
do you understand by the term `Corruption`?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....
b. Have
you witnessed or observed any corrupt practices/transactions during the period
2002 to 2007?
YES/NO (Delete/cross out whichever is not
applicable).
If
yes, specify:
(1) …………………………………………………………………………………………
(2) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
(3) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
(4) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
(5) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
c. In
2002, the government adopted a Zero Tolerance to corruption policy. Are there
any achievements made as a result of this policy?
YES/NO
If
yes, list them:
(1) ………………………………………………………………………………………......
(2) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
(3) ………………………………………………………………………………………......
(4) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
(5) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
(6) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
d. What
are the major setbacks, if any, in the fight against Corruption and Corrupt
practices in Zambia?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
e. Has
the task force on Corruption performed to expected standards?
YES/NO
(1) If
‘Yes’, in which ways:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(2) If
‘No’, Justify:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
f. What
do you think are the major challenges faced by the task force in the
performance of their duties?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
g. In
your opinion, why, is the prosecution of cases involving corruption on plunder
of national resources taking such a slow pace?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
h. Concerns
have been raised in newspapers by various commentators on corruption, that the
prosecution has been selective. Do you agree with such sentiments?
YES/NO
If ‘Yes’, justify
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
j.
Some press reports indicate that there
is a feeling among some sectors of society that some corrupt practices have
been accepted as normal in the Zambian society. Do you agree?
YES/NO
If yes:
(1) List
them:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(2) What
do you think is be the remedy?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
k. Has
Corruption done any damage to the Zambian economy?
YES/NO
If yes, in which way?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
l.
What do you think are the root causes of
Corruption in Zambia?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
m. In
your opinion, how best can Corruption and Corrupt practices be eradicated or
reduced to negligible levels in Zambia.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4.
Thank you for your time and effort. Your
contribution towards this survey/research is greatly appreciated.
5.
God bless you
D.
S. KALEPA, MCIPS MZIPS
Maj
(2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment