The recent high-profile corruption scandals that have wracked the country along with saturated media reports may have created a risk of people becoming immune to the issue. Yet corruption kills, even though by stealth.
Not too long ago this year, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa, the former Director General of the Ghana Health Service, offered a solution to corruption among government officials: herd them into the mortuary in Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital to witness corpses, including those of babies, being cut up for autopsy.
Going through that gory experience would perhaps humble them and bring up their more humane side. Of course, the honoured pathologist might have just wanted to put a little light-hearted spin on it but his formulation reflects the seriousness with which he takes the issue.
But while this “baptism of the mortuary” might provide a temporary solution to corruption, the search for solution should settle on one which empties the swamp, thereby getting rid of the breeding ground for the mosquitoes.
Corruption affects virtually every country but research has indicated that its magnitude and pervasiveness is minimal in countries with an open system of governance.
For instance, Australia is ranked 9 out of 177 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI), 2013. It therefore has relatively little corruption. Yet Australia was gripped with a corruption scandal involving a state minister in 2012.
The minister, Eddie Obeid, was involved in corrupt practices, including misusing his position as a Member of Parliament for financial gain between 2000 and 2011. He was stripped of his membership in the Australia Labour Party in 2013 and would almost certainly be prosecuted.
One other example can be drawn from Finland. The small Nordic country is judged one of the least corrupt countries in the world, ranking 2 out of 177 on Transparency International’s CPI. But last year, when the then Finnish Prime Minister, Jyrki Katainen, apparently approved a book contract worth 700 000 Euros to his favourite philosopher without public bidding, the public became incensed.
He was immediately arraigned before a powerful parliamentary committee to explain to the Finnish people why the bidding process was bypassed. The prime minister escaped impeachment by the skin of his teeth, thanks to an obscure legal technicality
It goes without saying that no country is, therefore, entirely free of corruption. An important difference, however, is the scale of the problem, the effectiveness of institutional arrangements underpinning its eradication, the openness of the political system which allows easy access to information and the political will to prosecute corruption cases; the lack of which in Ghana has created an entrenched culture of impunity.
Equally important is an active and engaged citizenry ready to bring mobilised civic energy to take on officials who appear impervious to accountability.
An open governance system provides citizens with the right to freely access information guaranteed by freedom of information legislation; such a system injects relative transparency into the political system, allowing people to have access to vital information from government officials who would have otherwise preferred to keep it under wraps.
And it appears the Ghana government would rather keep things under wraps. A study conducted in March this year by the global anti-corruption campaign group, Transparency International, and its local chapter, the Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII), indicates that the system of governance lacks transparency.
The study was conducted in connection with a new Open Governance Project implemented by four Transparency International’s chapters in Ghana, Ukraine, Peru and Indonesia.
The notion of open governance rests mainly on four pillars: the right to freely access information, to participate in policy making, and to demand accountability and transparency from the government. But open governance is not only about people’s rights; it is above all using those rights to define their priorities, for instance, in the delivery of services which will improve the material conditions of their lives in a concrete way.
The assessment was done by a detailed analysis of Ghana’s Constitution and legal framework to determine whether they provide sufficient basis for open governance. It found that political practice did not satisfy the criteria for open governance, and lack of transparency was the most acute.
In its overall conclusion, it says: “The findings in general are indicative of poor legal support for transparency and participation, a strong legal basis for prying open government secrecy or to expose wrongdoing in any government agency.
A draft Freedom of Information Bill has been kept frozen in the cold room of Parliament since 2013. And even the draft bill, in its current form, does not fully provide freedom to access information; it has ring-fenced most information from the Presidency, Cabinet and several other government agencies as untouchable, thereby turning the very fundamentals of freedom of information on its head.
However, the GII study did acknowledge that there is a strong basis for accountability in the government because the constitutional and legal architecture for it is strong, but limited.
The assessment notes that the office of the Auditor General is fairly independent, even though appointed by the president. Similarly, the creation of the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) prevents government’s excesses and CHRAJ is fairly independent even though its leadership is appointed by the President.
The writer is the National Co-ordinator of Open Governance Project, Ghana Integrity Initiative.
