We
continue to make the case internationally for more support for Sierra
Leone and, indeed, for current levels of support to be maintained.
However, I have to say that the continued absence of a Poverty Reduction
Strategy makes it more difficult to persuade others to change their
perceptions of Sierra Leone. I welcome the fact that the institutional
arrangements for preparing the PRS have been revised, and particularly
that they now fully recognise the need to maintain the link to resource
allocation. The production of a PRSP should symbolise Sierra Leone’s
passing from the immediate post-conflict period into that of a long term
process of eradication of poverty. We will continue to support the work
towards the preparation of a PRSP, and I look forward to one being
agreed with the IMF and World Bank as soon as possible this year.
Of
course, an important symbol of the return to peace two years ago was the
successful undertaking of the presidential and general elections of May
2002. You are about to take a further, hugely significant, step with the
holding of the first local elections for over 30 years. This will be the
first step towards a comprehensive process of decentralisation that is
needed to bring the government fully back into people’s lives of the
rural areas and to show that government can deliver services to them.
The preparations are, I hope, on track for elections before the rains.
As you know we have been a major supporter of the registration process
now taking place, and following the completion of registration, I will
consider what further support Britain might provide towards any
remaining steps leading to the elections themselves. I will do so in the
light of the conditions for our support agreed with your government. I
would like in passing to say how impressed we have been by the part that
UNAMSIL has played in the registration process. It is perhaps not
sufficiently recognised outside Sierra Leone how extensive the
peacekeeping role is, and how wide-ranging and flexible the role of
UNAMSIL has been.
There have been remarkable achievements since that symbolic declaration
at the beginning of 2002. All of the country is accessible and secure.
The Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration process has been
completed. The economy is growing. Macro-economic management has been
sound, and has been recognised as such by the International Financial
Institutions. Co-operation between the government and donors on the
strengthening of public expenditure management has made encouraging
progress. I am pleased also to know that you are reforming the public
procurement system. I am very encouraged by the steps that have been
taken to improve transparency through processes of public expenditure
tracking and the creation of budget oversight committees. I congratulate
the government on the setting up of the National Revenue Authority;
maximising revenue is essential if there are to be the funds for public
support for service delivery. These are commendable steps.
In
November 2002, we signed a Long Term Partnership Agreement, committing
Britain to continued support over a 10 year period. Our intention was to
assure Sierra Leone that we would be a partner over the length of period
needed to make an impression on the huge issues the country is having to
face. A key feature of the Agreement is the inclusion of agreed
benchmarks for reform. Performance against these determines the level of
our budgetary support. The benchmarks complement those agreed at the
Consultative Group meeting in November 2002, which are kept under the
review by the Development Partnership Committee. I look forward to
taking part in tomorrow’s DEPAC meeting. We have found the benchmarking
approach useful. It is a good way to focus on the main issues. Progress
against the benchmarks has been mixed, as one would expect in the case
of a country recently coming out of a major conflict. As I say, we have
been encouraged by the progress in areas such as public financial
management. We recognise the obstacles blocking rapid progress in some
areas of governance reform, although there have in this area too been
achievements. It has been most pleasing that the reviews of progress on
the benchmarks have been conducted with a frankness on both sides that
draws upon the closeness of the relationship between our countries. I
want, if I may, to take advantage of that established pattern of
frankness in moving on to the topic on which I want mainly to focus my
remarks. That topic is corruption.
Two
years ago, here in Freetown, Clare Short gave a speech in which she
emphasised the urgent need to take decisive action on corruption if
Sierra Leone was to be secure and to address the poverty affecting the
majority of your people. She chose to devote a key speech to this issue
for a very good reason. This is that no matter what the achievements of
Sierra Leone are in the whole range of developmental challenges, they
are all liable to be fatally undermined by corruption. One of the key
attributes of corruption is that its effects are seen by people in all
areas of society and at all levels. They do not need to be told about
it. It affects their lives every day. Quite apart from its practical or
material effects in denying the people their rights and perpetuating
inequity, it contributes to a pervasive sense that, fundamentally,
things have not really changed. It feeds a sense of hopelessness. It is
conducive to apathy and undermines the sense of civic pride. It
threatens everything.
I
would like today to consider what progress has been made on this
critical issue, and what remains to be done. I am prompted to do so in
part by the findings of the survey conducted by your government as part
of the current security sector review, which asked what people saw as
the main threat to Sierra Leone’s future security. The responses showed
that, in the opinion of the people of this country, the biggest threat
to future security is the prevalence of corruption. We should reflect on
that. It implies that ill-intentioned groups will be able to appeal to
the wider public, who might not otherwise be supportive of rebellion,
and draw on their knowledge of corruption in their everyday lives to
claim that nothing really changes. This is dangerous.
We
also now have the report of the survey of views of corruption published
by the World Bank Institute. It shows that, in the view of the people of
Sierra Leone, corruption remains widespread and largely unchecked. I
understand also that the number of cases being brought to the attention
of the Anti Corruption Commission by members of the public has dropped
markedly. If this indicates a loss of confidence that action will be
taken against corruption, it is an indicator that should be taken very
seriously indeed. These signs of the public mood, especially when linked
to worries about security, should be of great concern to the
government.
It
is disappointing that there is this perception, by those whose lives are
most affected, that corruption remains so significant and so prevalent.
It suggests that the efforts made to address this issue, including those
that Britain has supported, have not convinced the people that changes
are taking place. Why is this? And what should be done about it? I hope
that in asking these questions, you will accept that I do so with the
frankness of a friend of this country. I want in particular to suggest
that there must be a renewed and intensive interest in transparency in
public life and public administration, so that the people have a sense
that the long-established practices with which they are so wearily
familiar are changing for the better. This requires action not only by
government itself, but also support for action by others and steps to
help people feel that their voices are heard and that they have a
way to influence events.
It
should hardly be necessary to restate the harm that corruption does.
Corruption is corrosive. It eats away at and undermines all other
achievements of government. It has enormous impact on the economic
growth of the country. If there is to be employment for the youth of
Sierra Leone those jobs must be created by economic growth. You are all
aware of the dangers of a lack of things to do for young people, and of
a sense on their part, not only that their personal futures are
uncertain, but most dangerously that others in society continue to
profit from corrupt behaviour. We know that the level of growth needed
depends on investment but what deters investors from coming to Sierra
Leone? Of course, there are problems of lack of infrastructure, caused
in part by the recent conflict. There are legal and regulatory barriers
that must be addressed. But can investors be confident that they will be
able to go about their business without having to defer to established
corrupt practices? There has been at least one organised visit by
expatriate Sierra Leoneans intended to encourage investment by them
here. Why has so little come of this? Is it not at least in part because
they are not prepared to submit themselves to the need to connive in
corrupt practices?
Britain has been a major supporter of the Anti Corruption Commission. We
have made it a continuing condition of our 10 year Agreement that firm
action on corruption be taken. I welcome the commitments the Government
has made as benchmarks for action in 2004. These include the formation
of a cross-Government anti-corruption task force and the publication by
individual ministries of anti-corruption strategies. I am pleased that
the Government has made these commitments.
The
Anti Corruption Commission has been diligent in collecting evidence of
apparent cases of corruption. I congratulate the Commissioner for the
energy and commitment he has put into this. But what has been the result
in terms of outcomes in court? Has the public seen the corrupt
punished? Where are the decisive steps needed to convince the people
that the campaign against corruption is getting to where it hurts? We
have supported the Commonwealth Secretariat in providing judges to
strengthen the capacity of the judiciary to take action on cases sent
for trial. I commend the work that our Commonwealth colleagues are
doing. But can we say that there is a public perception that the issue
is being addressed energetically? The surveys I have referred to suggest
not. And until the people are convinced, until they see the evidence
both in their everyday lives and in what happens at the top of their
society, the problem, I suggest, is not and will not be solved.
So
what needs to be done? This is a question both of action and perception.
Specific steps need to be taken to improve transparency and
accountability in public life. But perhaps even more important is that
there should be a public perception that there is the determination and
political will to see corruption attacked. There are areas on which we
need to focus.
First: Public Accountability. Fighting corruption is not merely a
question of investigations by the Commission and action by the judicial
system. Parliamentary Committees, civil society and the media all
have important roles, in preventing and detecting corruption. There have
been reports by, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, alleging
specific corruption involving public funds. What action has been taken
on them? Legislation has been in place for 6 years enabling the Auditor
General’s Office to be set up at arms length from government. This is a
key step in demonstrating transparency. I understand that steps have
been taken to establish the Auditor General’s Office in the way provided
for by the legislation. I welcome that. The Sierra Leone Broadcasting
Service remains under the effective control of Government. When will it
be given independent corporate status? All of these are areas in which
the government has the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to
greater transparency.
Second: Diamonds. There have been welcome improvements in the
management of the diamonds sector. The adoption of a Core Minerals
Policy is an important step. But we need a comprehensive diamonds
strategy to which donors, including ourselves, can give support. If this
area is seen to be under effective control, it will give an enormously
important signal about the kind of progress Sierra Leone is making.
Tomorrow I will be visiting Kono, and seeing something of the work being
done to support the sector. But we need to have an overall government
strategy to which everyone works.
Third: A Poverty Reduction Strategy. I referred earlier to the
central importance of producing a Poverty Reduction Strategy. A publicly
owned and supported strategy is critical to a sense that the Government
and people have agreed on the steps to be taken to attack poverty. That
won’t happen unless the strategy is clear about the action to be taken
on the corruption that has contributed to Sierra Leone’s position at the
bottom of the Human Development Index.
Fourth: A National Strategy on Corruption. This is a stated
objective of the Government, but it has awaited the report of the
National Corruption Survey. We now have that report. This must be a
strategy in which the people have confidence. It must go far
wider than the actions of the Anti Corruption Commission. It is not
sufficient to leave matters to the Commission, good as its efforts are.
The fight against corruption is one for all areas of government. Each
government Ministry and agency must have a public policy on corruption
and should publicise the action it is taking.
Fifth: Public Financial Management. Much good work has been done in
this area, as I have already acknowledged.. This should be strengthened
by a full Country Financial Accountability Assessment, and a programme
to follow up the recent Public Expenditure Review. In every aspect of
public life, the maximum transparency must be promoted.
Much
of what I have referred to is action needed by government. It is
essential that the government demonstrates the political will to deal
with corruption. Unfortunately, it is likely that the poor results to
date to tackle corruption through the judicial system are seen by many
citizens of Sierra Leone as confirmation that there is not the will to
act. It is important that government is open and transparent and that it
is seen to be clean. In all of the areas I have referred to, Britain is
providing support. We will continue to do so. But I want to expand our
efforts to combat this insidious threat to Sierra Leone’s future
security and prosperity. The fight against it should be as broad as
possible. We know from our own government’s experience that we are kept
on our toes by the scrutiny and indeed the pressure of those outside
government. I want the DFID team to look for opportunities to strengthen
the hand of civil society in achieving greater transparency in public
life. We are in the process of finalising programmes to bolster
parliamentary scrutiny and to support civil society to organise itself
to provide an effective voice for the people of Sierra Leone. I realise
that the issue of a stronger role for civil society is one on which
there are some concerns in government. I understand this. But I hope
that the government will accept that you cannot deal with problems so
pervasive as corruption without involving all of your resources, inside
and outside government. I suggest that the Government arranges for a
forum to be set up that brings in civil society and determines the
respective roles of the representatives from government. We are willing
to provide support. It is only by bringing all our firepower to bear
that this menace will be overcome. But we need a renewed and more
comprehensive approach to which we can respond. I look forward to our
cooperating to deal with this threat to all that this country and the
international community have tried to achieve in helping to bring Sierra
Leone out of chaos. We remain committed to this task, and so do you.
We remain steadfast in our help as you work to help yourselves. We
remain of the view that Sierra Leone has a better future if the gain of
the last two years are built upon and not dissipated.
All
these choices are yours to make. And as you make them we will be there
to help you.
Thank you.
