Article

REACTION

But the staff and resources and energy put into investigating drugs and terrorism funds have not been applied to corruption money. Yet, corruption may actually kill more people and wreck more lives than drugs and terrorism. When a country's health budget is stolen, clinics are left without drugs, hospitals without equipment, doctors are left unpaid and babies are not immunized. Corruption is a threat to the economic stability and security of countries whose resources have been stolen or diverted.

Many companies are ahead of the legislators in their codes and checks on bribery and corruption and some private security companies are already tracking corruption money. Some progress at government level has been made recently in the UK, following a series of EU directives. The rules guarding against money laundering now extend to property and the art market. But major ambiguities remain. In London the use of trust numbered accounts and shell companies with nominee directors remains a serious loophole.

Following the Proceeds of Crime Art (2002) the Assets Recovery Agency was established but its emphasis has been on domestic crime. Recovered assets revert to the British government. Repatriating the proceeds of overseas corruption will require real political will and the necessary funding. Funding is a key indicator of the importance - or lack of it - attached to the involvement of Britons and British based companies and banks in corruption in Africa. The unit charged with investigating corruption is under-funded and under- resourced. The Metropolitan Police's priority lies with local crime - understandably. Why should they put time and resources into fighting crime that occurs a thousand miles away? That is why the funds have to be clearly earmarked by the government.

The other key indicator of the commitment to tackle corruption is legislation. British anti-corruption law is patchy and outdated. It has been rubbished by the OECD, Transparency International and British Parliamentarians. Draft legislation brought to  the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) in 2003 for containing obvious loopholes, inconsistencies and a general lack of clarity. In its response to the JPC's findings the Government agreed with some of the problems highlighted but remains unlikely to back down on some key issues. The government has not yet produced a revised version of the bill.

The Commission for Africa report argues for action on corruption in western countries as well as in Africa. It recommends increased transparency in export credit agencies and high standards in the governance of their projects. But the UK'S Export Credit Guarantee Department quietly watered down some of its anti-corruption guidelines without consultation. Only a court case brought by a British NGO forced the department to open up to consultation.

Despite specific recommendations by the Commission for Africa on fighting corruption, the government has yet to commit itself to enacting comprehensive and up to date laws to tackle the problem and provide agencies with resources and power to enforce them.    [ back ]

read more >>