‘It has taken just 5 years to steal R1.5 trillion’

Nothing could be more urgent – or more needed – than a national anti-corruption agency in South Africa. After 27 years of democracy, it is clear state capture continues to be a problem – even in the face of concerted efforts by President Cyril Ramaphosa.

It has taken just five years to steal R1.5 trillion. And the thieves in government caught out for their corrupt activities, have yet to be brought to book, and still hold their positions, thereby frustrating the actions of those who have chosen the right side of the law.

ALSO READ: Corruption-accused Zandile Gumede re-elected eThekwini chairperson

Despite progress made elsewhere in the world, there is still a great deal of work to be done in combatting the scourge of corruption in Africa, where 25% of African GDP (gross domestic product) is lost to graft.

In the SA context, the impact of years of corruption has been catastrophic. It has resulted in devastating economic losses while scaring away foreign in-vestment. It has deepened public service dysfunction, eroded institutional integrity, and has had a corrosive impact on the rule of law and our democratic processes.

It has served to further entrench poverty and inequality, cruelly exacerbating the plight of the most vulnerable. Ramaphosa has proposed the establishment of a high-level national anti-corruption agency that would act in an advisory capacity and report directly to parliament. Critics were, however, quick to point out there were already 14 law enforcement agencies operating in SA, all with a mandate to combat crime and corruption.

The questions that then arose were why and how a 15th agency could be expected to make the kind of seismic difference all the others have failed to achieve? In the alternative, should government not allocate its resources to improving efficiencies in the existing agencies?

The Inclusive Society Institute together with the Anti-Corruption Centre for Education and Research of Stellenbosch University, has been working on research aimed at responding to the call and the criticism.

Government needs to determine – via a clear and careful gap analysis and mapping – to what extent the existing anti-corruption agencies in SA are meeting the outcomes envisaged of them. In the event that a 15th agency is indicated, it’s imperative to consider the proposed nature and structure of such an agency, including the duties, functions and its powers under SA law.

There are four different types of agencies to weigh up. Firstly, those of a preventative nature, which have no law enforcement powers but typically include the promotion of standards that assist in guiding public and private actors and the facilitation of education at all levels of society.

Then there are those that have law enforcement powers and act as such. A word of caution here: if these already exist, creating new agencies should be avoided where the same result could be achieved by upgrading and retooling existing ones.

Thirdly, there are agencies that are of a hybrid nature – these are composed of both national public officials, who con- tribute their local experience and knowledge, and international anti-corruption experts, who bring their broad expertise and independence to bear. A model largely employed in countries unable to fight corruption with- out external assistance.

And lastly are agencies of an advisory or coordinating nature. These are referred to as councils and are driven by political will and founded at a high level – and is the kind proposed by Ramaphosa.

Unfortunately, these bodies do not boast a successful track record, as the efficacy of their role is entirely dependent on the degree of their authority. They are theoretically tasked with ensuring a greater degree of coordination and cooperation between existing law enforcement agencies, thereby resulting in improved efficiencies.

However, if the agency lacks authority over the law enforcement bodies it is tasked with coordinating – its authority be- comes little more than notional. If a 15th agency is contra-indicated, government needs to determine what the proposed upgrades to the existing agencies should be to ensure greater prosecutorial capacity and efficacy, the promulgation and enforcement of standards by public and private actors.

Daryl Swanepoel is chief executive of the Inclusive Society Institute