Leaders of anti-corruption agencies frequently encounter opposition from powerful beneficiaries of existing corruption. Those antagonists often seek to neutralize the agencies by weakening the agencies’ credibility, legal power, or operations. Drawing from ISS interviews and case studies, this cross-cutting report explores responses to this strategic challenge by agencies in eight countries (Botswana, Croatia, Ghana, Indonesia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mauritius, and Slovenia). The leaders and staff of those agencies worked to overcome opposition by recruiting allies, instituting internal controls to bolster transparency and accountability, pursuing low-visibility preventive efforts, and carefully assessing the pros and cons of high-level investigations. The outcomes of their efforts point to conditions that shape effectiveness and suggest possible workarounds or alternative approaches for anti-corruption agencies in adverse circumstances. 

 

 

After gaining independence from Britain in 1968, the island state of Mauritius developed swiftly into one of Africa's most stable and prosperous democracies. However, the nation's newfound wealth-especially in the booming offshore-finance sector-created distinct risks. Corruption and money laundering jeopardized the country's reputation for good governance. In 2002, Mauritius passed laws that created an Independent Commission Against Corruption, with investigative and prosecutory powers as well as preventive and educational roles. Early missteps and internal discord discredited the commission, but in 2006, Senior Magistrate Anil Kumar Ujoodha set the organization on a new course by building investigative capacity, implementing government-wide preventive reforms, and winning numerous court cases. Six years later, however, the commission was still struggling to win public trust, illustrating the difficulties of combating corruption in a politically charged context. 

 

 

In the early 1990s, a string of high-level corruption scandals in Botswana outraged citizens and undercut the country’s reputation for good governance and fiscal prudence. In 1994, the government created the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC), responsible for combating corruption through investigation, prevention, and education. The DCEC won global recognition for its innovative preventive and educational efforts, ranging from preventive units embedded within problem-prone government offices to outreach programs for youth and rural communities. The directorate’s investigative record was more varied, however. Even though investigations of petty graft led to convictions, high-profile cases foundered in court. The DCEC had limited responsibility for those legal setbacks, because its role in prosecution was merely advisory, but the rulings bolstered public concerns that Botswana’s economic and political elites were above the law. Judicial reforms and capacity-building efforts begun in 2012 raised hopes for future investigative gains.

 

 

Associated Interview(s):  Tymon Katlholo, Rose Seretse, Graham Stockwell