U4 Helpdesk Query

Content

• Part I presents comparative data on corruption in Rwanda
  
• Part II looks at corruption trends and institutions
  
• Part III examines anti-corruption measures and related reforms

U4 helpdesk reply

Most sources seem to indicate that corruption in Rwanda is not as widespread as in many other African countries. In the words of the government itself, "Rwanda has minimal corruption compared to many African countries" . Where corruption is found, it is being punished through serious sentences or disciplinary measures. There have been incidences of publicly exposing corrupt officials and dismissing senior officials on the grounds of corruption.

There are several institutions that are relevant to combating corruption. An Ombudsman's office, which monitors transparency and compliance with regulation in all public sectors was established in 2004. Financial management and adherence of public entities to financial accountability and transparency standards is regulated by the Office of the Auditor-General, which submits its audit reports and findings to the Parliament. The National Tender Board regulates public procurement and tender processes. The Government has introduced several anti-corruption measures, particularly aimed at curbing public sector corruption, such as disclosure of assets and codes of conduct for public servants.

There is, nevertheless, corruption occurring at the top level, most frequently, in the form of misappropriation of public funds through fraudulent procurement practices, unauthorised spending and misuse of public goods. So, for example, it is reported that the Auditor General's findings released in 2004 (covering 2002 activities) point that the conducted investigations into tender and procurement irregularities alone revealed that over $7 million was unaccounted for in various government institutions and projects.

[top]

Part I. Controlling Corruption: How Does Rwanda Compare?

Quantitative data indicates that corruption is relatively controlled in Rwanda and that it ranks favourably in terms of its efforts to combat and control corruption when compared to a regional average. So, for example, using the corruption dataset of the WBI's governance indicators, which is based on the system of percentile ranking, the findings are that 44.3 % of countries worldwide rank below Rwanda. The average for a country from Sub-Saharan region is that only 30.1% of countries rank below that particular country.

Using a points system for the same analysis, on the scale of -2.5 to +2.5 (with the higher ratings indicating better control of corruption), Rwanda ranks at -0.36, whereas the average for Sub-Saharan Africa is -0.65. Using the datasets, it is also possible to compare Rwanda with individual countries in Africa or worldwide. This and other information on the corruption control and Rwanda governance indicators can be found on the World Bank website.

[top]

Part II. Corruption Trends and Institutions

The GOR senior leadership maintains a consistent policy of combating corruption within Rwandan society. Although less corrupt than many other African governments, the GOR, despite its firm hold on public policy, is confronted with periodic allegations of misconduct or officials using their public office for personal gain. In general, such incidents do not go unpunished, and, when it involves high-ranking officials, they are dismissed or reassigned to positions of diminished responsibility. The National Assembly takes an active role in investigating public officials accused of corruption and, together with the recently established Ombudsman's Office, has exposed corrupt public officials, several of whom have resigned in 2004. The government has put in place a code of conduct and rules of disclosure for public officials.

On petty corruption level, officials such as police or immigration are not generally known to ask for bribes. There is petty smuggling across borders, but the RRA is becoming more vigilant in reducing the amount of illegal or under-valued goods imported into or through Rwanda.

There are several institutions in Rwanda dedicated to the transparency of the regulatory system. Rwanda established an Ombudsman's office in 2004 that monitors transparency and compliance with regulation in all governmental bodies and public sectors. The Rwanda Utility Regulation Agency, Auditor General's Office, Anti-Corruption Division in the Revenue Authority, National Bureau of Standards, and the National Tender Board, are all in place to enforce regulations as well. Moreover, the press has openly exposed instances of bad debts this year involving private citizens and GOR leaders. This has led to some resignations within the GOR.

A key component of the GOR's regulatory system is the Auditor General's Office, established in 1999 to continuously audit government adherence to fiscal controls. The office managed to make substantial progress in making government finances more transparent, according to IMF officials. The Auditor General audited the CY 2002 accounts of 41 public entities (including the Ministries of Defense and Finance and seven other ministries) and issued a report to Parliament in March 2004.

Irregularities in Public Procurement and Tenders

Auditor General's report, released in 2004, indicates that several government ministries and parastals were involved in irregular tendering procedures in 2002, causing the country to lose millions of dollars and frustrating the government's efforts to reduce high levels of poverty nationwide.

Violations of tendering guidelines from the National Tender Board (NTB) have resulted in the irregular award of tenders worth US $5.8 million. The audit says the practice had also resulted in the government acquiring poor quality goods and services at exorbitant prices.

The government of Rwanda had set up the Tender Board and the Auditor General's office in a bid to curb corruption and mobilise resources to reduce the high poverty levels. The board is mandated to handle all purchases made by government institutions exceeding three million Rwandan francs ($5,769).

According to the report, the Ministry of Education, the Civil Aviation Authority and the judicial sector failed to account for the loss of $3.1 million. It reports that out of the 44 embezzlement-related cases tabled before the state prosecutor's office, only 5 percent of the cases had been finalised while 75 percent were with the prosecutor, pending court proceedings.

The Auditor General indicates that investigations have revealed that over $7 million was unaccounted for in various government institutions and projects. "There's either conspiracy or deliberate misplacement or inexistence of transaction documents such as delivery notes, proforma invoices, requisition forms and purchasing orders within different institutions," the report said. "This puts the process of accountability at stake".

[top]

Part III. Anti-Corruption Measures and Related Reforms

Declaration of Assets

Politicians and civil servants in Rwanda were asked to declare their wealth after Rwanda's constitution adopted in 2003 made it a requirement for public office holders to declare their wealth. This was part of a concerted campaign against corruption in government.

Rwanda's Ombudsman is reported to have taken a strong stand on this, declaring that those who do not comply will face prosecution. It is anticipated that this drive will promote transparency and prevent people from acquiring wealth fraudulently.
Rwanda enjoys a reputation of low rates of corruption, but its image was recently tainted by media reports that accused senior government officials of various misappropriations.

Public Procurement

Some sources point that the current public procurement system has suffered from a centralised approach, where the procurement function has in the past been left with one institution alone, the NTB, which did not have the sufficient capacity to conduct all tendering proceedings. It has been suggested that decentralization coupled with effective accountability requirements and capacity building for procuring entities is the best way forward. The government is reported to have slowly embarked on the decentralization of the function, although contract awarding still remains with the NTB. Some suggest that the NTB as an organization has no capacity to efficiently conduct all the procurement but can very efficiently perform the function of setting policy and monitoring compliance. It is argued that the NTB can foster more transparency if it were not part of the proceedings and instead remained available as an appellate body to which aggrieved bidders and contractors could submit grievances.