Functionings of the African Union Advisory Board on Corruption

Respublica Literaria Republic of Letters

Lecture Series XXXVI

Functionings of the

African Union Advisory Board on Corruption

Addis Ababa, 16th July 2012

Costantinos Berhutesfa Costantinos, PhD Professor of Public Policy, School of Graduate Studies,

College of Business & Economics, AAU

Summary

Corruption affects all human societies and impacts negatively on the quality of lives, livelihood and, of course governance. Although corruption exists in all societies, various reports emanating from both African and international organisations and agencies confirm that corruption has reached extraordinary proportion in Africa. The African Union Advisory Board on Corruption (AUACB), was established by Article 22 (5) (a) of the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. To date, almost ten (10) years since the adoption of the Convention only thirty-three (33) States have ratified the Convention, representing just about sixty per cent of AU’s total mem-bership. Since its inception in January 2009, the AUACB has made appreciable achievements, under very trying and strenuous conditions. The Board started from scratch and wrestled with the prob-lem of setting up a functioning Secretariat, considering that Board membership is not full time and members reside in their respective countries pursuing their full time occupations. The recommenda-tions augur on improving governance by preventing and combating corruption in Africa, the appli-cation of the Convention to the AU itself and to its different organs; the establishment of a Confer-ence of State Parties for the reasons aforesaid and the criminalisation of corruption as an international crime within the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. The Board recom-mends that the AU requests all Member States to accede to the Convention, ratify and domesticate it as a commitment to the fight against corruption in Africa in general and in their individual countries in particular.

Key words: Corruption, AU Convention, Conference of State Parties, Advisory Board on Corruption

Costantinos

1 | Functionings of the African Union Advisory Board on Corruption

1. The African Union, transparency, good governance and development in Africa

The African Union Advisory Board on Corruption (AUACB), was established by Article 22 (5) (a) of the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC), adopt-ed by the Second Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the Union in Maputo, Mozambique in July 2003 and entered into force on 5 August 2006, thirty (30) days after the deposit of the fifteenth (15th) instrument of ratification. To date, only Thirty-three (33) member States have ratified and are States Parties to the Convention. In accordance with Article 22(5) of the Convention, the main mandate of the Board is to “promote and encourage the adoption of measures and actions by States Parties to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption and related offences in Africa”, and to “submit a report to the Executive Council on a regular basis on progress made by each State Party in complying with the provisions of this Convention”. Since its establishment, the AUACB has made some progress, with regard to the articulation of its mandate and designing the modus operandi for en-gaging with the AU and its Member States. The Board has also been faced with the daunting chal-lenge of the non-ratification of the AUCPCC by member states.

To date, almost ten (10) years since the adoption of the AUCPCC, only thirty-three (33) States have ratified the Convention, representing just about sixty percent of AU’s total membership. This low level of ratification would seem to suggest a lack of political will in the fight against corruption in Africa. The Board’s mandate includes the coordination of activities of AU member States in their fight against corruption. This is an enormous task that would require undertaking visits to the thirty-three Member States that have so far ratified the AU Corruption Convention. Activities during such visits would include compiling and analyzing relevant regulatory mechanisms and conducting inter-views with such Member States. The Board requires both human and material resources in order to successfully carry out these missions. Currently, the Board does not have these resources and its ability to carry out these visits in implementation of its mandate has been severely compromised.

The Board members have the requisite qualifications, including relevant experience and deter-mination to implement the mandate of the AU Corruption Convention. However, in order to max-imize on the Board’s attributes as aforesaid, stronger support from the AU with regard to resource allocation is urgently needed. Moreover, support from individual Member States in ratifying the AUCPCC would go a long way in demonstrating strong political will against corruption, thereby boosting the activities of the Board in the implementation of its mandate. Indeed, Africa and its people need a clear demonstration from its entire political leadership that it supports the war against corruption. Ratification of the AUCPCC by all member states will send a strong message that Afri-ca’s political leadership is committed to good governance and the fight against corruption after dec-ades of corrupt and authoritarian misrule. This will in turn support the Board’s activities as a follow up mechanism under the AUCPCC.

From its inception, the AU was committed to transparency, good governance and development of the African continent. This is clear from its objectives and principles. The objectives of the AU are inter alia to “promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good gov-ernance” (AU Constitutive Act (2000/2001), Article 3 (g); Heyns and Killander (eds), 2006) and to “promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural levels as well as the integra-tion of African economies” (AU Constitutive Act (2000/2001), Article 3 (j)) “Respect for democrat-ic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance” (Article 4 (m)) and the “promo-tion of social justice to ensure balanced economic development” (Article 4 (n)) are among the prin-ciples of the AU. In as much as it opposes good governance and undermines development as “liter-ally the antithesis of development and progress” (UNECA, 2010, 3) Corruption poses a challenge and, to be sure, a great risk, to the objectives and principles of the AU.

Costantinos


2. State of Corruption in AU Member States and impact on development in Africa

Corruption affects all human societies and impacts negatively on the quality of lives, liveli-hood and, of course governance. Although corruption exists in all societies, various reports em-anating from both African and international organisations and agencies confirm that corruption has reached extraordinary proportion in Africa. Africa Governance reports and studies commis-sioned by the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), confirm that corruption remains the single most important challenge to the eradication of poverty, the creation of a predictable and favourable investment environment and general socio-economic development.

Corruption was ranked first among the fourteen leading obstacles to good governance and state delivery in Africa. It is a major challenge to governance and development in Africa, deep-ens poverty, stalls the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, and undermines the moral fabric of society. In the AU Constitutive Act (AU-CA), adopted in 2000 and entered into force in 2001, African leaders indirectly, committed themselves to fighting corruption as good governance was clearly embodied among the objectives and principles of the AU (AU CA, Arti-cle 3 (g) and Article 4 (m)). The Declaration on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), which was adopted at the first meeting of the Heads of State and Government Im-plementation Committee of NEPAD met in Abuja in Oct. 2001, implicitly identified corruption as an obstacle to development.

3. The AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption

In July 2003, the AU Member States finally adopted the AUCPCC. In the Preamble to this Convention, they acknowledged, “Corruption undermines accountability and transparency in the management of public affairs as well as socio-economic development on the continent” and there was a need for governments and all segments of civil society to “fight the scourge of cor-ruption” (Heyns and Killander op cit 305 & AUCPCC, 2003). The adoption of the AUCPCC in 2003 served as evidence that corruption in Africa was not a foreign invention as African leaders finally recognised that it was a major obstacle to Africa’s development and therefore needed to be prevented or combated. The AUPCC is the major instrument to prevent and combat corrup-tion in the African continent. This Convention is binding on AU Member States that became parties thereto by signing and ratifying it. Given that the Convention was adopted even before the UN adopted its own convention, the AUPCC clearly underscores the urgency and im-portance that the Union attaches to the fight against corruption.

3.1. State of ratification of the Convention by AU Member States

So far, thirty-three (33) Member States are parties to the Convention. This does not mean that the Convention can be enforced in these States Parties, particularly in those common law countries that adopt a dualist approach to international law, where national leg-islatures need to domesticate the Convention or enact legislation giving it effect into its do-mestic law. Despite its ratification by 33 States, the Convention has been domesticated only in a few of those countries.

3.2. Activities and Achievements

Since its inception in January 2009, the AUACB has made appreciable achievements, under very trying and strenuous conditions. The Board started from scratch and wrestled with the problem of setting up a functioning Secretariat, considering that Board membership is not full time and members reside in their respective countries pursuing their full time oc-cupations.

First, the Board drew up and adopted its Rules and Regulations and Code of Con-duct for its members. This was necessary to establish an order of procedure and to ensure

Costantinos


that members abided by the highest ethical standards in its operations. As a first step in the bid to assemble information and data on what is on the ground regarding the activities of State parties, which constitute the main stakeholders and partners to the Board in the im-plementation of the Convention, the Board drew up a Comprehensive Baseline Ques-tionnaire to be administered to State Parties. After extensive consultations, the Board pre-pared and adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan which maps out the spheres of activities for the Board for five years 2011 – 2015. The Plan is organized around four strategic axes: Awareness raising on the Convention and Visibility of the Board; Support to the implemen-tation of the Convention; Building partnership with all relevant stake-holders and institu-tional strengthening of the Board and the Secretariat and capacity building.

A programme of action was drawn up from the Plan for 2012, which includes Advocacy Missions to member states. So far the Board has undertaken missions to Djibouti, Con-go-Brazzaville, Seychelles, Burkina Faso and Ghana in May and June 2012 to encourage ratification and assess the implementation of the Convention. Another very important achievement is the development of a “Regional Anti-Corruption Programme for Africa (2011 – 2016)”, in partnership with UNECA. Other achievements include: Submission of four Reports to the Executive Council (July 2009, January 2010, July 2011 and July 2012); Mounting of Exhibition at AU Summits (July 2011 and July 2012); Commemoration of In-ternational Anti-Corruption Day (Addis Ababa, 2010, Dakar, 2011 and Kigali, 2012); and Organization of Youth Anti-Corruption Essay Competition (2012).

3.3. The AUACB and implementation of the Convention

An effective implementation of the Board’s mandate depends largely on availability of adequate funding and technical capacity. The Board requires funds in order to recruit staff for the secretariat, carry out missions in the AU Member States in furtherance of its man-date, and also carry out an awareness campaign on the Convention. As regards funding of the Board, the Executive Council, during the AU Summit from 16th June to 1st July 2011 in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, reported that the Board was allocated a budget of $US 525.000,00 in 2011 with a maximum permissible increase of 5% for the year 2012. Most of the budget for 2011 was spent on staff costs and meetings leaving little for the core activities of the Board. The Board appreciatively notes that in recognition of this fact, the AU in-creased the Board’s 2012 budget to $1.3 million. This will enable the Board to undertake more activities towards implementing its mandate.

3.4. Implementation of the Mandate of the Board

3.4.1. Promote and encourage the adoption and application of anti-corruption measures on the Continent

To date, only 33 Member States of the AU have ratified the Convention and even few have domesticated it. The Board needs to urgently embark on aware-ness/outreach visits to States Parties to the Convention and to those that have not ratified it.

3.4.2. Document information on the nature and scope of corruption and related offences in Africa

One of the Board’s most important functions is to collect and document infor-mation and scope of corruption and related offences in Africa, to enable it to track the scope of corruption in Africa, and enable it to develop strategies that can have real impact in dealing with corruption. The Board has made some preliminary pro-gress in an effort to collect and document such information through the Baseline Questionnaire sent to State Parties to the Convention. However, only thirteen (13) out of the Thirty-three (33) AU Member States that ratified the Convention have re-

Costantinos


sponded so far. The Board has been able to undertake a comparative analysis of the baseline questionnaires received from the States that have responded. As will be ob-served in this report under paragraph 4.2, the analysis of the questionnaires has en-abled the Board to synthesize the common trends and points of divergence in those States Parties, as regards their various obligations under the AU Convention. The Board’s third report to AU Executive Council, noted that:

There are several reports supposedly generated from research, which have put some very alarming data on the nature and scope of corruption on the continent…Africa needs to carry out its own home-grown research to authenticate or dispute the existing reports. This responsibil-ity is thrust on the AUACB by the Convention.

The Board has, since then, and in spite of its limited resources, contributed to the generation of home-grown research aimed at verifying existing reports and pro-ducing information on the nature and scope of corruption in Africa, especially through the Regional Anti-Corruption Programme for Africa, in partnership with UNECA. The net implication of this on AU Member States is that they may be bet-ter persuaded to accept the devastating consequences brought about by corruption, knowing that such information is generated by African Research Institutes, Academ-ic centres, and NGOs. However, the opposite may also be true since most African leaders, the majority of whom rely on foreign support, may tend to give more cre-dence to research from foreign experts. The Board hopes that this home-grown re-search will change this view.

3.4.3. Develop methodologies for analysing the nature and extent of corruption in Africa, and disseminate information and sensitize the public on the negative effects of corruption and related offences

The Board is in the process of coming up with methodologies for examining cor-ruption in Africa and disseminating the information and sensitizing the public on the negative effects of corruption and related offences. It is not that Africans are not aware of the disasters caused to their lives by corruption. The thrust of this sensitiza-tion is to awaken them to the Board’s work and to reasons why everyone needs to take the fight against corruption seriously. Given the Board’s limited resources, it will be important for us to target our message to grassroots entities such as CSOs and Faith-Based Organizations ( FBOs) whose work reach a greater number of people through regular and inexpensive means (for instance, preaching and speaking against corruption in such places as Mosques, schools and Churches).

3.4.4. Advise governments on how to deal with the scourge of corruption in their domestic jurisdictions

The Baseline Questionnaire is “a major means of collecting the relevant data on corruption and of assessing the performance of Member States on the implementa-tion of the Convention and to advise them” (AU-AUACB, Third Report to the Execu-tive Council, 11). We recognize that apart from the Baseline Questionnaire, we need to devise other methods of obtaining information from government. The fact that only thirteen (13) out of thirty-three (33) States Parties have so far responded to the ques-tionnaire, and some only after one year, shows clearly that this is a good but not nec-essarily a sufficient strategy.

3.4.5. Collect information and analyse the conduct and behaviour of multi-national corporations in Africa and disseminate information to state authorities designated under Article 18(1) of the Convention

Foreign governments, multi-national and trans-national corporations and even non-governmental organisations are all involved and contribute to the scourge of

Costantinos


corruption in Africa. The number of multi-national corporations operating in Africa has been on a steady increase, and so has their influence on several African govern-ments, especially in countries with large extractive economic resources, such as oil and gas, gold, diamond. The Board needs to collect information and analyse the conduct and behaviour of multinational and transnational companies and dissemi-nate such information to national authorities. In partnership with ECA, the AUACB has already done so in its report on Private Sector and Corruption in Africa under the Regional Anti-Corruption Programme for Africa.

3.4.6. Develop and promote the adoption of harmonized codes of conduct of public officials

The non-ratification of the AUCPCC by all the AU Member States and the fail-ure by the States to enact national legislation for its implementation has made it im-possible for the Board to embark on the process of harmonising codes of conduct of public officials that would help prevent or combat corruption in Africa according to the AU Convention.

3.4.7. Build partnerships with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Civil Society, governmental and intergovernmental organizations to facilitate dialogue in fighting corruption

The Board is currently interacting with the African Commission but plan also to engage with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Our cooperation with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has led to the establishment of a working group on corruption that is supported by the ECA and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, although progress has been delayed due to the adjournment of the session last year. The Board has direct interaction with AU Member States through the Baseline Questionnaire and country visits to encourage implementation and ratification of the Convention. The Board interacts indirectly with Member States through the AU policy organs. The Board is also in engagement with Development partners who mainly support capacity development of stakehold-ers in the fight against corruption, either through technical or financial support. The Board is committed to engaging in constructive and constant dialogue and building partnerships not only with African governments considering their prominent role in fighting corruption at the national and regional levels, but also with African CSOs, Intergovernmental and NGOs.

3.4.8. Submit a report to the Executive Council on a regular basis on the progress made by each State Party in complying with the provisions of the Convention

Since its establishment, the Board have reported regularly to the AU through the Executive Council, and this is its fourth report and also the more substantial, dealing with progress made in States Parties in fighting corruption. One of our priorities for 2011-2012 is to “support the implementation of the Convention, specifically on the level of ratification” and to raise awareness at the level of AU Member States on the importance of the Convention and its ratification in order to combat corruption on the continent (AU-AUACB, 2011-2012 Strategic Plan, 36). This work has to be done through our visiting and otherwise engaging the 21 AU Member States that have not yet ratified the Convention in order to persuade them to do so.

3.4.9. Perform any other task relating to corruption and related offences assigned to it by the AU

The AU policy organs may request us to perform other tasks relating to corrup-tion and related offences. The adoption of the 2011-2012 Strategic Plan was accord-ingly encouraged by the AU Executive Council.

Costantinos


3.5. Monitoring of the AUCPCC by the AUACB

As a follow up mechanism on the implementation of the AUCPCC, the Board visited, three States Parties, namely Burkina Faso, Congo-Brazzaville and Ghana to monitor their compliance with this Convention. This oversight function has not been performed fully as yet due to the Board’s lack of resources.

Article 20 (1) provides that each State Party should communicate to the Chairperson of the Commission at the time of signing or depositing its instrument of ratification the desig-nation of a national authority or agency in application of offences established under Article 4 (1) of the Convention. These national authorities or agencies should be responsible for mak-ing and receiving the requests for assistance and cooperation referred to in this Convention (Article 20 (2)). Unfortunately, all States Parties have failed to comply with this provision, thus making it difficult for the AUACB to follow up the implementation of the Convention.

4. Challenges to the implementation of the Convention:

4.1. Challenges faced by the AUACB in performing its mandate vis-à-vis AU Member States

In performing its mandate, The Board is concerned that only 33 out of the 54 AU Mem-ber States that adopted the Convention in 2003 have ratified the Convention. Even fewer AU Member States that ratified the Convention have domesticated it in order to enforce or give it legal effect in their states. Not a single State Party has communicated to the Chairper-son of the Commission the designation of a national authority or agency in application of of-fences established under Article 4 (1) of the Convention, in violation of Article 20 (1)-(2) of the Convention. Its lack of sufficient human, material and financial resources to carry out its mandate means excessive dependence on international development partners. This is un-wholesome. Moreover, the challenge is AUACB’s lack of visibility and AUACB’s lack of in-formation on the state of corruption and its impact on development in Africa.

Below is a table that presents a synthesis of the responses received from some State Par-ties on various aspects of the implementation of the Convention and a brief interpretation of these responses in relation to some provisions of the Convention.

Baseline Questionnaire

Country Pro

vis

ion

1 –

art.

4 (

1)

(b)

Pro

vis

ion

2 –

art.

7 (

4)

Pro

vis

ion

3 –

art

9

Pro

vis

ion

4 –

arti

cle

10 (

a)

Pro

vis

ion

5 –

arti

cle

10 (

b)

Pro

vis

ion

6 –

art

16 (

1)

(b

)

Pro

vis

ion

7 –

art

17 (

4)

Question Question 1 2 1 2 Algeria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Namibia Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nigeria Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes - Rep. of Congo Yes Yes Yes - Yes - Yes Yes - Rwanda Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Sierra Leone Yes Yes Yes No Yes - Yes Yes - South Africa Yes Yes - Yes No - No Yes Yes Tanzania Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Togo Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Zambia Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes

Costantinos


State Parties’ responses to some provisions of the Convention - countries which answered

YES NO no answer Provision 1 10 0 0 Provision 2 10 0 0 Provision 2.2 9 0 1 Provision 3 5 4 1 Provision 4 7 3 0 Provision 4.2 6 1 3 Provision 5 8 2 0 Provision 6 10 0 0 Provision 7 4 3 3

5. Comments:

Provision 1: Article 4 (1) (b) deals with “the offering or granting, directly or indirectly, to a public official or any other person, of any goods of monetary value, or other benefit such as a gift, favor, promise or advantage for himself or herself or for another person or en-tity, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his or her public functions”. This creates the offence of active corruption by a bribe-giver.

Question: Have you adopted legislative of other measures to create this offence? Provision 2: Article 7 (4) calls on States Parties to “ensure transparency, equity, and efficiency in

the management of tendering and hiring procedures in the public service”. Question 1: Have such measures relating to public procurement been implemented? Question 2: Have such measures relating to recruitment been implemented? Provision 3: Article 9 provides that “Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other

measures to give effect to the right of access to any information that is required to assist in the fight against corruption and related offences”

Question: Have you adopted such legislative & other measures to ensure access to information? Provision 4: Article 10 (a) “Proscribe(s) the use of funds acquired through illegal and corrupt

practices to finance political parties”. Question: Have you adopted such legislative and other measures to ensure that the proceeds of

illegal and corrupt practices are not used to fund political parties? Question 2: Are political parties funded from the public purse as well as private sources? Provision 5: Article 10 (b) calls on States Parties to “Incorporate the principle of transparency

into funding of political parties” Question: Have you adopted such legislative and other measures to ensure transparency in the

funding of political parties? Provision 6: Article 16 (1) (b) requires States Parties to adopt legislation to enable the “confisca-

tion of proceeds or property, the value of which corresponds to that of such pro-ceeds, derived, from offences established in accordance with this convention”. This section deals with asset forfeiture.

Question: Have such legislative measures been adopted? Provision 7: Article 17 (4) provides that “States Parties commit themselves to enter into bilateral

agreements to wave banking secrecy on doubtful accounts and allow competent au-thorities the right to obtain from banks and financial institutions, under judicial cov-er, any evidence in their possession”.

Question: Have such bilateral agreements been concluded?

It is clear from the table and explanations above that on such vital provisions of the Convention as requiring Member States to provide “access to any information that is required to assist in the

Costantinos


fight against corruption” (Art 9), and that requiring States Parties to enter into bilateral agreements to wave banking secrecy on doubtful accounts…” (Article 17 (4)) Member States have not been keen to implement the Convention. For instance, as seen in the table, out of ten (10) States, four (4) are yet to provide access to information, with one providing no answer at all. This means that only half of the ten States have taken the necessary step. Similarly, only four (4) States have taken neces-sary step to waive bank secrecy while three (3) have not and a further three (3) provided no answer at all. It is also clear that on the question as to whether political parties are funded from public as well as private sources, (Provision 4 (question number 1) which is related to Article 10(a) of the Convention proscribing the use of illegal funds to finance political parties, as many as three (3) States of the ten have not responded or not taken any steps to implement the provision. One State did not provide any answer. However, on such issues as the creation/criminalization of corruption, all the ten State Parties that responded have taken this step. It seems possible that the 100% success of this particular provision was due to the fact that most State Parties already have the crime of cor-ruption in their legal system prior to the Convention and only needed to attune their law to the Convention requirements. The same could also be said for provision two (2) regarding public pro-curement regulations of tenders.

5.1. Challenges faced by States Parties in implementing the Convention

The Board is concerned that most States Parties have failed to ratify and domesticate the Convention and related critical instruments such as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance and the Protocol establishing the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, especially in those common law countries which require to pass legislation incorporating ratified instruments into domestic laws. Most States Parties have failed to im-plement the Convention even though they have ratified or accessed to and domesticated it. Most States Parties have failed to comply with Article 22 (7) of the Convention which re-quires them to report to the AUACB on progress made in the implementation of the Con-vention within a year after its coming into operation and their national anti-corruption au-thorities or agencies to report to the Board at least once a year before the ordinary sessions of the policy organs of the AU. All States Parties have failed to comply with Article 20 (1) of the AUCPCC that required them to communicate to the Chairperson of the Commission the designation of a national authority or agency in application of offences established under Ar-ticle 4 (1) of the Convention. Only 13 out of the 33 AU Member State parties to the Con-vention and received the Baseline Questionnaire administered by the AUACB responded and returned them.

Virtually all State Parties that returned the Baseline Questionnaire recognised through their answers that they were yet to fully implement the Convention. The majority of State Parties have failed to implement the AUCPCC in the adoption of legislative and other measures to ensure that the proceeds of illegal and corrupt practices are not used to fund po-litical parties, the incorporation of the principle of transparency into funding of political par-ties and the declaration of assets by public officials. However, on such issues as criminaliza-tion of corruption for the general public, provided this does not affect party funding, State Parties responded by a resounding “YES” even though implementation does not follow. In several other aspects, State Parties that responded did not provide any answer at all.

6. Conclusion and recommendations:

6.1. Conclusion

Good governance features prominently among the objectives and principles of the AU as a key to democracy, development and African renaissance. Since the creation of the AU,

Costantinos


African leaders have admitted that corruption is the major challenge to good governance in Africa and must be fought in all spheres and by all means. The NEPAD Declaration, the APRM and the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance all condemn corruption. However, the political will to combat corruption demonstrated by African lead-ers when they adopted the AU Constitutive Act, NEPAD and APRM Declarations, and the AUCPCC appears to have waned. Just over half of AU Member States have ratified the Convention and even fewer States Parties have domesticated the Convention and complied with its provisions. In view of the above, the Board makes the following recommendations on the way forward in the war against corruption:

6.2. Recommendations:

6.2.1. To improve governance by preventing and combating corruption in Africa, the Board recommendations are as follows:

The Board, which is AU’s premier anti-corruption body, should be adequately funded as a sign of commitment by African leaders to fight corruption. It should not be left to Development Partners to provide funding to such a sensitive body as this gives the impression that the African leadership does not consider the fight against cor-ruption a priority, notwithstanding its devastating effects on the continent. The AU would send a strong signal of its commitment to fighting corruption by ensuring a real-istic funding level for the AUACB at all times (AU-ACB, Third Report, paragraphs 12 & 13). The AU should consider revising the Convention to provide for the appointment of the AUACB members for a period longer than two years as is the case for other en-forcing mechanisms to give them a reasonable length of time to perform their mandate; the submission of a report of the AUACB to the Executive Council on a yearly basis and not just on a regular basis.

6.2.2. the application of the AUCPCC to the AU itself and to its different organs; 6.2.3. the establishment of a Conference of State Parties (CPS) for the reasons aforesaid; 6.2.4. the criminalisation of corruption as an international crime within the jurisdiction of the

African Court of Justice and Human Rights;

6.2.5. Concerning AU Member State and State Parties to the Convention,

The Board recommends that the AU requests all Member States to accede to the AUCPCC, ratify and domesticate it as a commitment to the fight against corruption in Africa in general and in their individual countries in particular. the AU requests States Parties to comply with Article 20 (1) of the AUCPCC that provides for each State Party to communicate to the Chairperson of the Commission, at the time of signing or de-positing its instrument of ratification, the designation of a national authority or agency in application of offences established under Article 4 (1) of the Convention. States Par-ties to the Convention should be invited to comply and report to the AUACB and re-spond to the Baseline Questionnaire. As of April 2012, only 13 out of 33 State Parties had responded to the Baseline Questionnaire that was sent to them in December 2010. These countries are Algeria, Congo, Ghana, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia, and South Africa.

Finally, the Board remains committed to ensuring the full implementation of the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption which entered into force in August 2006 and will fulfil its mandate as defined by the decisions of the Executive Council and the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union.

Costantinos


References and Endnotes

African Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, 2003 AU-AUACB, 2011-2012 Strategic Plan, Final version, June 2011 AU-AUACB, Third Report to the Executive Council of the African Union Advisory Board on Corruption to the

PRC & Executive Council, 26th June to 1st July 2011 in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, Country Self-assessment for the APRM, 2004

ECA, Assessing Public Financial Management and Accountability in the Context of Budget Transparency in Afri-ca, November 2005

ECA, Assessing the Efficiency and Impact of National Anti-Corruption Institutions in Africa, December 2010 ECA, Guidelines for Enhancing Good Economic and Corporate Governance in Africa, Final Draft, May 2002 ECA, Africa’s Economic Report, Africa and the Monterrey Consensus: Performance and Progress of the Continent,

ECA: Addis Ababa, 2008 ECA, African Governance Report I (AGR I) 2005, Addis Ababa: ECA. ECA, Africa Governance Report II 2009, Oxford University Press, 2009 Garth le Pere & Francis Ikome, The Future of Africa’s Development and Global Governance, in

Lungsgaarde, Erik (ed), Africa Toward 2030: Challenges for Development Policy, Palgrave: M.C. Mi-lan, 224-255)

Heyns C and M Killander, (eds), Compendium of Key Human Rights Documents of the African Union, (Pre-toria: Pretoria University Law Press, 2006)

MAEP, Rapport d’évaluation No 09 du Burkina Faso, June 2009 MAEP, Rapport d’évaluation No 6 de la République du Bénin, January 2008 Mangu, AMB, Assessing the effectiveness of the African Peer Review Mechanism and its impact on the promotion of

democracy and good political governance” (African Human Rights Law Journal, 367-387, 2007) State of the Union South Africa Report 2010 (http:www.stateoftheunionafrica.net )

ACRONYMS

AUACB Advisory Board on Corruption ACHPR African Charter on Human and Peo-

ples’ Rights APRM African Peer Review Mechanism AU African Union AUACB African Union Advisory Board on

Corruption AUC African Union Commission AUCPCC African Union Convention on Pre-

venting and Combating Corruption AU- CA African Union Constitutive Act CSO(s) Civil Society Organisation(s) CSP Conference of State Parties ECA Economic Commission for Africa ECCAS Economic Community of Central

African States

ECOWAS Economic Community of West Afri-can States

EU European Union FBOs Faith-Based Organizations IMF International Monetary Fund NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Devel-

opment NGO(s) Non- Governmental Organization (s) SADC Southern African Development

Community UN United Nations UNECA United Nations Economic Commis-

sion for Africa UNCAC United Nations Convention on Anti-

Corruption UNDP United Nations Development Pro-

gramme

http://www.stateofthe/

Functionings of the African Union Advisory Board on Corruption

Documents

Transcript of Functionings of the African Union Advisory Board on Corruption