Did President Mahama violate his own code of ethics? Did he offend any of the principles under-pinning the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan? Or, did he flout any of the provisions of the Constitutions, when, he unwittingly accepted a gift of a Ford Expedition vehicle from a Burkinabe contractor who from all indications had business interest in Ghana? These are questions whose responses perhaps may be provided in the coming weeks, as the establishment delves deeper into this rather unfortunate development.
President Mahama’s own Code of Ethics for Ministers and Political Appointees developed in 2015 and currently transformed into a bill, grants in section 1.4.4 that, the exchange of gifts during official government visits is an accepted practice, and that refusal to accept may cause offence. It makes the point that such gifts are permissible as they are usually to the office, rather than to the individual.
Such gift, section 1.4.4 of the code directs, must be relinquished to the Secretary to Cabinet to arrange for appropriate display of the item.
The Code allows ministers to retain gifts, provided the value does not exceed GHC200.00. However, gifts with an estimated value of over GHC500.00 are to be relinquished upon leaving office, unless permission has been granted by the President to retain it.
Code categorically prohibits gifts, either in cash or kind, from businesses and other organisations.
The 1992 Constitution also provides in Article 284 that, “A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his or her personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office”
What makes the revelation of the President’s Ford Expedition gift a matter of greater public interest is that it comes at the heels of the Global Anti-Corruption Summit in the UK in May this year, during which the President told (with some hesitation) the BBC in an exclusive interview, that he has never ever taken a bribe in his life, and admonishing that one placed himself at a level where it is not possible to be offered bribe.
The unfortunate thing about the development is that, the President has already been tried in the media, and found guilty before we are able to apprise ourselves of the full facts; and there is no doubt that the international image of the president would have taken a good beating by the time the full details of this saga is known.
While we are at it though, it serves a useful purpose to consider the experiences of other countries in combating the use of gifts to elicit undue, and even due favours.
Malaysia comes to mind immediately. In 2015, during a fact-finding visit by this author to Malaysia, it became apparent that that country was making no compromises in its fight against corruption. At most public places, especially in lifts and receptions of government’s departments and agencies; and even in corporate premises, bold notices were up, informing the visitor that it was a criminal offence to give gifts to people in official positions, and that a simple “Thank you” is as good a gift as any other.
Drawing lessons from Malaysia is apt in the context of the fact that, both Ghana and Malaysia won their political independence in the same year, and yet Malaysia has overtaken Ghana in the pursuit of development and wellbeing of their peoples. It becomes interesting in this context to find out what Malaysia is doing differently to reduce official corruption and for the matter, eliminate the wanton but avoidable haermorrage of public resources that otherwise would have gone to finance access to essential social services, among others.
There’s indeed been increasing public resentment with corruption and bribery in Malaysia, just as in Ghana. A recent Reuters report disclosed that a Malaysian government minister’s husband has been charged with misusing nearly MYR50 million (approximately USD16 million) allocated for a public farming project. The Government of Malaysia however appears more determined to stem corruption from the Malaysian society than appears to be the case in Ghana. The Malaysian authorities have for instance enlisted the help of taxi drivers “to act as the graftbuster’s “eyes and ears” on the ground,” reports Yow Hong Chieh at The Malaysian Insider, a popular Malaysian bilingual news site, banned by the government in June 2009, for allegedly violating Section 233 of the Act, which deals with improper use of network facilities or network service.
The principal legislation in Malaysia relating to anti-corruption is the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. The Act prohibits any person (by himself or through another) from soliciting or accepting gift or from offering or giving gift. Gift is given a wide meaning under the Act and is not limited to pecuniary bribes and can extend to any service or favour.
The Act applies equally to public officials (both domestic and foreign) and private individuals and so prohibits both public and commercial bribery. The Act also has extra-territorial effect and applies to offences by Malaysian citizens or permanent residents outside and within Malaysia.
It is almost impossible to fain ignorance of the rule, as notices warning the public of gift giving pervades all public places and offices.
The penalties for bribery can be imprisonment of up to 20 years and a fine of (i) not less than five times the sum/value of the gratification where it is capable of being valued or is of a pecuniary nature; or (ii) MYR10,000 (approximately USD3,200), whichever is greater.
Dealing with the cultural dimensions of gift giving
Just like in Ghana, it is customary to give gifts. Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese as part of their tradition, routinely present gifts and hampers to friends, relatives and business partners in the run-up to the Chinese New Year with the objective of fostering greater relationship with the recipients. However, giving gifts that involves business interest which can potentially affect the recipient’s decision constitutes a criminal act in Malaysia.
Article 165 of that country’s Penal Code bars civil servants from accepting any form of gifts or valuables.
Civil servants will have to report to the Public Services Department first, before they are allowed to accept any gifts. A visitor to that country therefore finds that, government officials, Members of Parliament, state assemblymen, members of the public and staff of corporate entities are minded to gently turn down gifts for fear of offending the law.
Government officials are not the only ones barred from receiving gifts; their spouses are also not allowed to do same.
The American Perspective
The US also has one of the most stringent rules on gift giving. Late in August 2010, the New York Governor, David Paterson came under investigation. The investigation was in respect of the Governor’s receipt of five tickets to the first game of the 2009 World Series. He took two aides, his son, and his friend’s son to the game.
The problem is, he didn’t pay for the tickets at the time – at least the four he should have paid for, that is all of the tickets but the one he used. The New York State Commission on Public Integrity (CPI) began the investigation after it found that Paterson paid for the four tickets AFTER he was pushed for an answer by the local media.
It was therefore decided that Paterson wasn’t completely truthful when he told the CPI, under oath, that he intended all along to pay for the four tickets.
Federal officers and workers are allowed to accept gifts worth $20 or less at any one time, but they can’t accept more than $50 per year from any single gift-giver. The four tickets received by Governor Paterson were worth a total of $495.00. He was therefore found to have offended the state’s ethics rules on public officials’ accepting gifts and consequently the Commission proceeded to recommend that Paterson paid a $90,000 fine for taking the tickets.
Though Ghana has some legal provisions on gift giving and receiving, they require better clarity and further detailing in terms of sanctions for violating them. Beyond that, the country can begin to change the culture through a concerted public campaign, aimed at sensitising both givers and recipients of gifts about the rules. Such campaign will necessarily involve posting on walls in all public spaces and establishments a caution notice – only then can we say we are serious about stemming this seemingly harmless but dangerous practice of giving gifts.
Source: Steve Manteaw
