By Cathy Maulidi:
Institution integrity committees (IICs) have received a mixed rating, in terms of how they have performed in the fight against corruption.
They were formed seven years ago.
IICs were established in government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), including councils, with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) touting them as the panacea for unethical behaviour and corruption which were festering in offices.
- Advertisement -
The chairperson for the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament is mandated to play an oversight role over IICs.
- Advertisement -
Wednesday, the committee’s chairperson Peter Dimba indicated that the country was winning the battle against corruption.
“As a committee that has been given the mandate in Nacs 2 to play an oversight role, we feel we are winning the battle against corruption because the idea is to bring everyone on board and that we have all hands on deck in the fight against corruption and not leave the fight in the hands of the ACB.
“Additionally, through the IICs, we have seen stakeholders intensifying awareness and putting in place preventive measures to nip corruption in the bud at institutional level. As they say, prevention is better than cure,” Dimba said.
However, good governance expert at Transparency Initiative, Nicholas Mwisama, said such committees have been making negligible progress.
- Advertisement -
“The committees are only existent on paper.
“However, they lack direction. I think the initiative must be abandoned. Let citizens be empowered through parallel structures to come up with initiatives that can expose corruption.
“Citizens can use, among other tools, access to information legislation to achieve what the said committees were instituted for,” Mwisama said.
ACB recently conducted a monitoring exercise on IICs to assess progress made in implementing anti-corruption interventions.
The exercise also sought to evaluate institutional capacity and compliance in dealing with corruption.
The performance report that ACB released indicated that out of 124 targeted MDAs, 97 were monitored, with 94 having operational IICs, representing 95 percent of the monitored institutions.
However, only 82 percent of the IICs met the membership composition requirement of having senior members.
“The exercise revealed that most IICs do not convene quarterly meetings to strategise and review their progress, with only 34 percent of the monitored IICs doing so. Additionally, only 28 percent of the IICs underwent anti-corruption training in the 2022-23 financial year.
“The monitoring exercise also found that 68 percent of the monitored institutions allocated at least 1 percent of their ORT [Other Recurrent Transactions] funds for IIC activities, but 23 percent were uncertain about funding allocation, and 9 percent did not allocate anything. This lack of transparency and financial prudence is a concern,” the performance report reads.
The exercise further revealed that 65 percent of IICs implemented their anti-corruption action plans, but 35 percent did not.
Moreover, 63 percent of the monitored IICs did not submit quarterly progress reports, with only 33 percent submitting reports.
“The bureau recommends that the Legal Affairs Committee summon non-performing IICs, and the Office of the President and Cabinet take disciplinary action on non-compliant MDAs. The bureau should also build capacity on investigation skills and procurement monitoring processes.
“In conclusion, while there are encouraging signs of progress, there is a need for increased capacity and compliance among IICs. The fight against corruption requires a concerted effort, and the National Anti- Corruption Strategy II provides an opportunity for this,” the report indicates.
ACB spokesperson Egrita Ndala did not comment on the matter.
