Countering Corruption in South Africa

The State President has stated that the Government will take steps to ensure that the level of corruption in South Africa is reduced.  The Deputy State President of South Africa is on record as demanding that ‘ordinary people’ in South Africa take action to prevent corruption, the scourge that, more than any other, is dragging South Africa into the ranks of other failed newly-independent African States.  One must take him at his word – would a President or a Deputy President lie to the people?

If there is a serious desire in Government to stop the corruption, certain things must be done, in order to make corruption no longer the standard.

There must be an independent body, reporting only to Parliament, whose task it is to identify acts of corruption, investigate them and bring those found to be responsible to trial.  This body must be totally apolitical, not beholden in any way to a sitting Government or to an official of the Government.  It must be entirely free to act as required, and its actions must be publicised in such a way that no person or institution is able to rewrite or edit the reports.

There must be legislation that makes the commission of an act of corruption by a public official a serious crime in every case, with mandatory prison sentences that cannot be reversed, commuted or pardoned, and without the possibility of parole.  Corruption is a crime that should rank alongside treason in terms of the public’s and the Court’s standards of disapprobation.  The seriousness of the crime should be multiplied by the level of the person found guilty of it.  Corruption of a petty clerk is certainly less serious that the corruption practiced by a State President, and this seriousness should be applied to the sentence.  In every case, the funds lost to corruption, calculated in the widest sense, should be recovered from any party found guilty to such corruption, whether or not that person benefited directly from the corruption, and regardless of the amount of the benefit obtained by that party.  A person who pays a bribe is equally guilty of the corruption as the person who receives it, and any person who negotiates a bribe, or other form of corruption, should bear an equal responsibility for the entire act.

There must be a system that encourages persons who know of corruption to report the facts.  An unconnected whistleblower should be given absolute protection from any form of retribution, possibly to the point of protecting his or her identity even in the trial.  A person who is a participant to the corruption should be given immunity from prosecution in respect of that act of corruption, or any other in respect of which he or she provides adequate and usable evidence.  It is better to punish only one party to a multi-person act than for that act of corruption to remain unpunished!  Any person who is the first to give usable evidence of corruption should be given a substantial reward – say twenty per cent of the fine and of the funds recovered by the State from the guilty party.  If more than one person is involved in bringing the corruption to trial, the reward could be shared between them, or the Court could be given the power to allocate more that the approved amount of the reward, possibly even up to the full amount in each case, depending on the value of the information given and the seriousness of the act of corruption.

The Government must take steps to ensure that any international act of corruption is investigated and brought to trial wherever the parties to it are to be found and where it may have had effect.  This will certainly require new treaties internationally, and it will certainly require an unusual degree of openness in its negotiation.  Any country that does not accept such a treaty or give effect to it should automatically be subjected to trade and other penalties, such as an import duty of all goods derived from such country, and a refusal of entry to any person associated with a proven act of corruption or employed by any company so associated.

Finally, ensure that all discussions and votes relating to the proposed new laws are fully open and available to the public.  Let the Parliamentarians perform their duty to the public in an open way.  Every possible step must be taken to ensure that the Members of Parliament do not subvert their responsibility to the people in the protection of their own interests, as happened so clearly during the Arms Scandal, when Andrew Feinstein, a long-standing ANC member, was forced to resign his Seat in Parliament after he had attempted to go against the will of the then State President and numerous other Members and Ministers in demanding the exposure of all the facts relating to that large-scale theft from the People.

The suggestions set out above will give real meaning to South Africa’s claim to have one of the best Constitutions in the world, and give the country back much of the international status and respect that it has lost in the wake of criminal conduct that remains, in most cases, unpunished.  Unfortunately, they are almost certainly never likely to be implemented.  There are too many criminals running the Government, not only of South Africa, but also of many other countries. 

But would it not be nice for people to be able to say, for once, “My Government represents me!”