Publications
Partners
WHEN I was asked about 10 years ago to become president of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), I thought the South African government had taken leave of its senses.
Any opinion poll of 100 citizens in Church Square in Pretoria would have resulted in a nil response. The Eurovision Song Contest would have elicited greater and more positive responses.
But that would have been a wrong approach, as FATF – a body established by state parties without a treaty – has a very wide mandate, including corruption.
FATF was set up primarily by the OECD countries to combat terrorism but its membership remit grew apace, as did its terms of reference.
FATF now acts against a state that acts dishonestly for money or for personal gain.
It has a most unusual method of work: each member state is investigated by a group of states with regard to pre-determined terms of reference.
The investigation determines the extent to which the member state is able to fulfil its obligations as laid down by FATF’s principles and various conditions.
The investigation is pretty rigorous and the state under investigation will try its utmost to ensure its behaviour, law and practice accord with FATF’s prescriptions.
SA is a party to various treaties, in addition to its affiliation with FATF.
No two treaties are the same in terms of the definition of corruption or the state’s enforcement machinery.
The liberal interpretation of the clause in SA’s constitution that receives customary international law into our law and the way treaties may add to the individual’s rights and duties by being made part of our domestic law represent a higher standard.
Apartheid, with its various practices, had ensured SA was right up there at the top of the league of the principal definition of corruption where by leave of the OUP definition of corruption, parties were willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
However, corruption is again on the increase, despite the existing wide-ranging group of non-governmental bodies with inquisitive attitudes, not only towards the government but also the private sector.
It’s no longer tenable to hold that corruption applies only to relations between a government agency and an individual.
Private bodies are as prone to corruption as public bodies: the problem is it’s more difficult to identify private agencies whose tentacles aren’t easily identifiable.
But apart from the range of bodies that can act in terms of public power, we’re fortunate in having institutions identified by SA’s constitution and whose operations are protected under chapter nine of the constitution.
These range from the auditor general, the public protector, the human rights commission, the electoral commission and a number of other bodies found scattered throughout our constitution.
These are important, as other organs of state must ensure their independence, impartiality and effectiveness.
Most importantly, no body must interfere with the functioning of those institutions.
I’m unaware of any other country having such peremptory language defending bodies vital to SA’s democratic values. Nevertheless, corruption appears to be on the increase and it presents a serious threat to our democratic order.
The establishment of a new body – CASAC, the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution – recently brings to fruition work that’s taken many months of dedication by public-spirited individuals drawn from South African society.
It will enable us to make a more comprehensive response to what may become the central issue facing us.
The most original suggestion made in the report is the establishment of a dedicated body to “red card” corruption.
Of course, we owe a huge debt to our press for investigating and highlighting many instances of corruption.
However, here’s a practical guide to what might be done about it. I can do no better than to quote from CASAC’s recommendations for action: “The new body should be an independent agency, but accountable for its actions. It should partner with civil society and it should investigate all complaints.”
It will need adequate resources to carry out its task, but the rewards that could be expected as a result will be more than adequate compensation.
Happily, South African laws already provide a good basis for addressing corruption, but according to CASAC there are a few gaps: for example, in relation to whistleblowers – who aren’t adequately protected.
There are many other well-considered recommendations, and CASAC has set out the pros and cons of each, so that the report provides a most useful basis for discussion of the issues.
Any opinion poll of 100 citizens in Church Square in Pretoria would have resulted in a nil response. The Eurovision Song Contest would have elicited greater and more positive responses.
But that would have been a wrong approach, as FATF – a body established by state parties without a treaty – has a very wide mandate, including corruption.
FATF was set up primarily by the OECD countries to combat terrorism but its membership remit grew apace, as did its terms of reference.
FATF now acts against a state that acts dishonestly for money or for personal gain.
It has a most unusual method of work: each member state is investigated by a group of states with regard to pre-determined terms of reference.
The investigation determines the extent to which the member state is able to fulfil its obligations as laid down by FATF’s principles and various conditions.
The investigation is pretty rigorous and the state under investigation will try its utmost to ensure its behaviour, law and practice accord with FATF’s prescriptions.
SA is a party to various treaties, in addition to its affiliation with FATF.
No two treaties are the same in terms of the definition of corruption or the state’s enforcement machinery.
The liberal interpretation of the clause in SA’s constitution that receives customary international law into our law and the way treaties may add to the individual’s rights and duties by being made part of our domestic law represent a higher standard.
Apartheid, with its various practices, had ensured SA was right up there at the top of the league of the principal definition of corruption where by leave of the OUP definition of corruption, parties were willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
However, corruption is again on the increase, despite the existing wide-ranging group of non-governmental bodies with inquisitive attitudes, not only towards the government but also the private sector.
It’s no longer tenable to hold that corruption applies only to relations between a government agency and an individual.
Private bodies are as prone to corruption as public bodies: the problem is it’s more difficult to identify private agencies whose tentacles aren’t easily identifiable.
But apart from the range of bodies that can act in terms of public power, we’re fortunate in having institutions identified by SA’s constitution and whose operations are protected under chapter nine of the constitution.
These range from the auditor general, the public protector, the human rights commission, the electoral commission and a number of other bodies found scattered throughout our constitution.
These are important, as other organs of state must ensure their independence, impartiality and effectiveness.
Most importantly, no body must interfere with the functioning of those institutions.
I’m unaware of any other country having such peremptory language defending bodies vital to SA’s democratic values. Nevertheless, corruption appears to be on the increase and it presents a serious threat to our democratic order.
The establishment of a new body – CASAC, the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution – recently brings to fruition work that’s taken many months of dedication by public-spirited individuals drawn from South African society.
It will enable us to make a more comprehensive response to what may become the central issue facing us.
The most original suggestion made in the report is the establishment of a dedicated body to “red card” corruption.
Of course, we owe a huge debt to our press for investigating and highlighting many instances of corruption.
However, here’s a practical guide to what might be done about it. I can do no better than to quote from CASAC’s recommendations for action: “The new body should be an independent agency, but accountable for its actions. It should partner with civil society and it should investigate all complaints.”
It will need adequate resources to carry out its task, but the rewards that could be expected as a result will be more than adequate compensation.
Happily, South African laws already provide a good basis for addressing corruption, but according to CASAC there are a few gaps: for example, in relation to whistleblowers – who aren’t adequately protected.
There are many other well-considered recommendations, and CASAC has set out the pros and cons of each, so that the report provides a most useful basis for discussion of the issues.
