Creating an “inner policeman” was how Minister of Justice Dullah Omar described the moral code South Africans needed to develop if corruption was to be weeded out.
Given the extent of the rot in the justice system as well as other government departments, Omar’s metaphor was less than apt, but delegates to this week’s government conference on corruption concurred that a new moral order was needed for public servants, as well as the public. And they managed to inch their way beyond citing lofty ideals, blaming the past and placing all their hopes on re-education.
That the conference struggled so hard to be more than the usual talking shop was an indication of how large a headache corruption is for the state. So was the attendance register, which was a who’s who of Cabinet ministers, department heads and key figures from the police, justice, intelligence agencies, correctional services, inland revenue and specialised units, as well as the public protector’s office. They said there was “a long way to go to establish clean, accountable and transparent government”.
Delegates in six commissions and two panel discussions cited examples and case studies of greed, crookedness and the culture of entitlement outlined by Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, who opened the conference.
The myriad problems officials listed about the justice system were the stuff of general knowledge – dockets disappearing, missing witnesses and vanished evidence, escapes and leaked information.
So bad was the situation, said South African Police Service anti-corruption unit head Stefan Grobler, that South Africa should consider emulating countries like Hong Kong and Malaysia where corruption investigations were handled by a single unit and there was presumption of guilt rather than innocence.
Also mentioned were pay-out frauds, including more than 31 000 invalid identity numbers remaining on the computer system and 426 fraudulent cheques worth R24-million found by the Department of State Expenditure last year. There were corrupt tax officials and syndicates working with members of the Department of Home Affairs.
There were serious concerns about the potential for fraud in the R36-billion procurement by national and provincial departments, as well as procurement of goods and services by local governments and parastatals. Also of concern was the sale of state land by auction and the processes of rental accommodation. Nepotism, ethnicity and cronyism when hiring civil servants laid the basis for greater corruption.
Citing poor management as the main factor behind corruption, Mpumalanga Premier Mathews Phosa – himself no stranger to grappling with corruption in the public sector – spoke with conviction. Problems he identified included school feeding schemes, government fleet petrol cards, cheque thefts, civil servants with conflicts of interest, bribery, ghosts, fraud in capital projects, secret accounts, payments made to non- existent entities and unauthorised promissory notes.
At the other end of the spectrum, some delegates argued wasting time and flinging litter were examples of corruption, but Deputy Minister of Finance Gill Marcus cried halt, arguing persuasively that delegates needed to prioritise and compile an action plan, not a wish list.
Speaker Frene Ginwala helped concentrate minds by pointing out that only half the government departments surveyed earlier this year had an internal audit function. She said corruption flourished where there was no accountability for public servants, government officials and institutions. About 648 entities should be held accountable for public funds, but only 34 reported to Parliament and 200 were audited by the auditor general.
Ginwala warned against “complicated opaque systems” where public officials were “gatekeepers”.
National crime prevention strategy deputy director general Bernie Fanaroff provided the nub of the strategy. Fanaroff said there were three issues: law enforcement, encouraging compliance and prevention.
The conference ended with a lengthy statement intended to draw together the major strands of the discussions and serve as a basis for a broad conference on corruption scheduled to take place next February.
Transparency, public information and protection for whistle-blowers – measures until now not commonplace in the state system – were all highlighted as critical to getting the message across that the government intended to be tough on corruption.
Ginwala wryly observed that discussion prior to the conference about keeping its deliberations behind closed doors was contrary to the public scrutiny needed.
That was not the only moment of irony. Judge Willem Heath pointed out that the steady rate of attrition at the conference was an indictment of delegates who had been mandated to attend but by lunchtime of the second day had vanished from the hall.
Those who remained came up with a working plan. Although there had been talk of rationalising the numerous agencies and units involved in anti-corruption work, delegates opted for the approach outlined by Judge Heath: that the best short-term move was to work with what existed and enable these agencies by providing additional money and skilled staff.
The conference agreed legislation needed to be tightened or changed and rules governing treasury regulations, tender procedures and management clarified and constantly revised.
Short-term measures identified included making sure that internal audit and anti- corruption units functioned, blacklisting companies and individuals with unsavoury practices, and disciplinary measures for public servants tightened and enforced.
Managers from the rank of deputy director upward are to be required to disclose their assets, as are councillors. Senior managers might have to sign performance agreements and will be held accountable for misspent or misappropriated public money.
Departments in the justice system have been asked to bring concrete proposals to the February summit, which will also look at longer-term moves.