Investigation or referral

"Inviting a Tiger into Your Home": Indonesia Creates an Anti-Corruption Commission with Teeth, 2002 – 2007

Author
Gabriel Kuris
Focus Area(s)
Country of Reform
Internal Notes
Original draft of case posted September 2012. Correction in spelling of Tina Kemala's name made and new draft posted to the web in October 2012 by Sarah Torian. Minor style changes made and new draft posted to the Web in March 2013 by Suchi Mandavilli.

changed to bring to the front page. original posting 7/11/2014
Abstract
In 2002, under domestic and international pressure to confront corruption after the economic and political collapse of the 32-year Suharto regime, Indonesia established the Corruption Eradication Commission (the Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, or KPK). The new commission had powers so strong that one anti-corruption activist said Indonesian politicians were “inviting a tiger into [their] home” by creating it. Still, the public reacted warily, mindful of past failures and distrustful of the commissioners approved by Parliament. After creating an effective operating structure, the commissioners spent more than a year building capacity by introducing innovative human resources policies, cutting-edge technologies, strong ethical codes and savvy investigative tactics. The commission then launched a series of investigations that netted dozens of high-level officials and politicians, with a 100% conviction rate. By the end of 2007, the KPK was standing on a stable foundation, buttressed by solid public support.
 
Gabriel Kuris drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Jakarta, Indonesia in February and March 2012. For a look at the commission’s second term, see the Innovations for Successful Societies companion case study “Holding the High Ground with Public Support: Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Commission Digs In, 2007-2011.” Note that many Indonesians have only one name, while others prefer to be referenced by their first name rather than their surname. This study follows the naming conventions used by local media and individuals themselves. Case published September 2012.

Holding the High Ground with Public Support: Indonesia's Anti-Corruption Commission Digs In, 2007 – 2011

Author
Gabriel Kuris
Country of Reform
Internal Notes
Original draft posted on 9/20. Correction to one footnote made on 10/16/12 and new version posted. Minor style changes made and new versions uploaded by SM on 03/25/2013.

original 7/11/2014
posted to the front on 9/27/2019
Abstract
When they assumed office in December 2007, the second-term members of Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission faced high expectations. Established in 2002 in response to domestic and international pressure, the commission had broad responsibilities for combating corruption through investigation, prosecution, prevention and education. The first-term commissioners had built respect and credibility by taking on increasingly prominent cases and maintaining a perfect conviction record. During their first two years, the five second-term commissioners met the public’s high expectations with a string of high-profile arrests, including dozens of members of Parliament, high-level officials and a close relative of the president. They also ramped up preventive and educational measures to permanently reshape Indonesia’s corruption environment. After the 2009 elections, legislators worked to weaken the commission, and law enforcement leaders pressed criminal charges against the commissioners. Allies in media and civil society rallied the public around the agency, mostly frustrating the detractors. While some of the commissioners suffered personally, they left behind an institution with a strong public reputation. This case study documents the strategy the commissioners pursued to defend the agency against potential spoilers.
 

Gabriel Kuris drafted this study based on interviews conducted in Jakarta, Indonesia in February and March 2012. For a look at the establishment, structure and first-term leadership of the commission, see the Innovations for Successful Societies companion case study “‘Inviting a Tiger Into Your Home’: Indonesia Creates an Anti-Corruption Commission With Teeth, 2002-2007.” Note: many Indonesians have only one name, while others prefer to be referred to by their first names rather than their surnames. This study follows the naming conventions used by local media and individuals themselves. Case posted September 2012.

Associated Interview(s):  Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas

Righting the Ship: Uganda Overhauls its Tax Agency, 2004 – 2014

Author
Leon Schreiber
Country of Reform
Abstract

In the early 2000s, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) faced a crisis. Even after adopting a modernized legal framework that made the agency semiautonomous—able to operate much as a business would, though still accountable to a public board—the institution remained paralyzed by corruption, outdated technologies and procedures, and a toxic organizational culture. In 2004, to begin righting the ship, the URA’s board appointed 43-year-old Allen Kagina, who had served the agency for more than a decade, as the new commissioner general. Kagina engineered a radical overhaul that required all 2,000 URA staff members to reapply for new positions under a revamped organizational structure. A new modernization office overhauled tax procedures, upgraded the URA’s technology, improved anticorruption measures, strengthened the tax investigation and prosecution function, and enhanced staff capacity. At the same time, the URA was working to smooth its customs procedures and improve cooperation with partner countries in the East African Community. 

Leon Schreiber drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Kampala, Uganda, in January and February 2019. Case published April 2019.

To view a short version of the case, please click here

See related Uganda Revenue Authority Case Study: Bolstering Revenue, Building Fairness: Uganda Extends its Tax Reach, 2014-2018

Battling a Cancer: Tackling Corruption in Peru, 2011–2014

Author
Blair Cameron
Country of Reform
Abstract

From 2000 to 2009, Peru’s justice system successfully prosecuted former president Alberto Fujimori and other high-level public officials for acts of corruption committed during the previous decade. But the country’s judicial institutions struggled to curb newer corruption networks that were operating with impunity throughout the country. Because the networks had penetrated the justice system itself, it was increasingly difficult to prosecute—let alone convict—people who had participated in briberies, kickbacks, or other schemes. In the 2011 presidential election, Ollanta Humala, whose slogan was “Honesty Makes a Difference,” captured 51% of the vote and gave a boost to reformers within the country’s legal institutions. Humala joined the Open Government Partnership, strengthened Peru’s anticorruption commission, and brought together top leaders from the country’s judicial and legal institutions to improve the government’s response to corruption. In 2012, the comptroller general, the public prosecutor (attorney general), and the president of the judiciary created a new subsystem to bring to trial those officials accused of corruption. They created a new prosecutorial team and designated a specialized chamber to hear the most-complex corruption cases. At the same time, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights strengthened its capacity to investigate and bring to trial cases involving the misuse of public resources. By 2015, several cases were in preparation, nearing trial. The fight against corruption in Peru continued to face many obstacles, however, including the perception that anticorruption efforts had lost top-level support.

Blair Cameron drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Lima in August 2015. Case published December 2015.

From a Rocky Start to Regional Leadership: Mauritius's Anti-Corruption Agency, 2006-2012

Author
Gabriel Kuris
Country of Reform
Abstract
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. 
 
Gabriel Kuris drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Port Louis and Quatre Bornes, Mauritius, in March and April 2013. Case published July 2013.
 
Associated Interview(s):  Dev Bikoo

Managing Corruption Risks: Botswana Builds an Anti-Graft Agency, 1994-2012

Author
Gabriel Kuris
Country of Reform
Internal Notes
Quotes Attributed to: Graham Stockwell, Tymon Katlholo, Rose Seretse, Leonard Sechele, Thapelo Ndlovu, Ellah Moepedi, Bugalo Maripe, Modise Maphanyane, Bothale Makgekgenene, Greg Kelebonye, Donald McKenzie, Amanda Gore, David Sebudubudu,
Abstract
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.
 
Gabriel Kuris drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Gaborone, Botswana, in March 2013 and in London in August 2013. Case published October 2013. 
 
Associated Interview(s):  Tymon Katlholo, Rose Seretse, Graham Stockwell

Rose Seretse

Ref Batch
L
Focus Area(s)
Ref Batch Number
11
Country of Reform
Interviewers
Daniel Scher
Name
Rose Seretse
Interviewee's Position
Director
Interviewee's Organization
Botswana's Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crimes (DCEC)
Language
English
Nationality of Interviewee
Botswana
Town/City
Gaborone
Country
Date of Interview
Reform Profile
No
Abstract
Rose Seretse discusses the role of Botswana’s Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crimes (DCEC) in combating corruption. She explains the establishment of the DCEC in 1994, the process through which staff are recruited, the role of public perceptions and education in combating corruption, and the organization of the DCEC. Seretse briefly touches on the relationship of the DCEC with other branches of government and the level of corruption encountered in Botswana. Finally, she discusses the role of Performance Management Systems in incentivizing productivity and combating inefficiency within the government.
 
Profile

At the time of this interview, Rose Seretse was director of Botswana’s Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC), a position to which she was appointed in 2009. Seretse served as the deputy director of the DCEC from 2007 to 2009. Prior to joining the DCEC in 1997, Seretse worked in the public service in various capacities.  Seretse received her masters in public administration from the University of Botswana. She also holds a bachelors of science in construction engineering and management from Ferris State University in the United States.

Full Audio File Size
47 MB
Full Audio Title
Rose Seretse Interview

Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas

Ref Batch
A
Focus Area(s)
Ref Batch Number
4
Country of Reform
Interviewers
Gabriel Kuris
Name
Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas
Interviewee's Position
Commisioner
Interviewee's Organization
Indonesia'’s Corruption Eradication Commission
Language
English
Town/City
Jakarta
Country
Date of Interview
Reform Profile
Yes
Abstract
Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas describes his time as one of the first commissioners of Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Perberantasan Korupsi, KPK). He explains the human resource management system the commissioners set up and how they brought together their diverse staff. He points to the implementation of standard operating procedures as one tool they used to create a trustworthy, well-functioning staff during the commission’s rapid growth. From his experience with the KPK, he draws the lessons that a successful anti-corruption commission requires independent investigators, carefully recruited judges (in the anti-corruption court) and a solid internal affairs system. The commissioners worked on preventing corruption as well as repressing it, though convincing the public and media of the importance of prevention was a challenge. Hardjapamekas describes the commission’s relationship with the private sector as a dialogue, with each group learning from the other. From his own time in the private sector, he brought management expertise to the commission.
 
Profile

Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas served as a commissioner on Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) from 2003-2007. He was President Commissioner of BNI (Bank Negara Indonesia, Indonesian State Bank), while also serving on other national and private sector commissions and as Chairman of the Advisory Board/Founding Committee of the University of Indonesia Center for the Study of Governance in cooperation with Hills Governance Center, CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) Washington. Before his time on the KPK, Hardjapamekas had an extensive career in state-owned enterprises. He held a number of positions just prior to joining the KPK: chief commissioner to PT Agrakom (January 2000-December 2003), commissioner and committee chair of auditing PT Pembangunan Jaya Ancol (March 2001-December 2003), advisor and member of the audit committee for PT Unilever Indonesia (2001-2003), advisor to the commissioner (from 2001) and independent commissioner for PT Semen Cibinong (April 2002-December 2003), auditing committee member (January 2002-December 2003) and independent commissioner to PT Kabelindo Murni (June 2002-December 2003), head of the auditing committee and independent commissioner to PT Hero Supermarket (September 2002-December 2003) and independent commissioner to PT Kaltim Prima Coal (March-October 2003). He had previously served as the finance director and executive director and of PT Timah (a state-owned tin mining company), the director of PT Tamban Batubara Bukit Asam (a state-owned coal mining company), and the head of accountancy for Perum Perumnas (a state-owned housing company).  In addition, Erry also held the position of commissioner (1996-1998) and chief commissioner for the Jakarta Stock Exchange (1998-2001). He holds a Bachelor’s of Economics from Padjadjaran University, Bandung. 

Full Audio File Size
41 MB
Full Audio Title
Erry Hardjapamekas - Full Interview

From Underdogs to Watchdogs: How Anti-Corruption Agencies Can Hold Off Potent Adversaries

Author
Gabriel Kuris
Focus Area(s)
Abstract
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, GhanaIndonesia, Latvia, LithuaniaMauritius, 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. 
 
Gabe Kuris authored this paper based on Innovations for Successful Societies case studies of eight anti-corruption agencies. Paper published in 2014. 
 
Associated Interview(s):  Bertrand de Speville

Surmounting State Capture: Latvia's Anti-Corruption Agency Spurs Reforms, 2002-2011

Author
Gabriel Kuris
Country of Reform
Abstract

Eager to demonstrate progress against corruption in order to advance its standing in the accession processes for NATO and the European Union, Latvia established the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, known as KNAB, in 2002. Through its investigations into high-level graft and campaign finance violations, the new agency rapidly established a reputation for effectiveness. When a prime minister tried to dismiss KNAB's popular director on a flimsy pretext, citizens rallied in support of the agency, leading to the prime minister's resignation. Despite an internal scandal and leadership conflicts that undercut its credibility, KNAB launched over a hundred investigations, targeting suspects that included three of Latvia's powerful oligarchs. KNAB's work helped drive a wave of reform that reduced opportunities for high-level corruption in government, changing the laws covering asset disclosure, parliamentary immunity, legislative transparency, judicial procedures, and the financing of political campaigns.  

Gabriel Kuris drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Riga, Latvia, in June 2012. Case published October 2012.