The Corrupt Practices Act (CPA) could remain too toothless to bite mortally after several proposed amendments by the Anti- Corruption Bureau [ACB] continue to gather dust at Ministry of Justice.
ACB principal public relations officer Egrita Ndala said in a written response this week that there is need for a comprehensive review of the law which, she said, was last expansively amended in 2004.
ACB was set up in 1998.
Among others, the bureau has been pushing for a provision to allow it to arrest suspects without a
warrant under circumstances such as during surveillance and spot-checks, to speed up prosecution.
Other proposals include the establishment of a corrupt practices court and reconciliation of the process of appointing its deputy director general (DDG) and that of the director general.
According to Ndala, the Act as it is now, has director as head of institution while in reality, this position was changed to director general and deputy director general.
“A director as of now is a head of department in the bureau, not head of the institution,” she said.
Currently, all corruption cases are handled by the conventional courts and all arrests are made after obtaining court warrants.
“There is need for thorough review of the law so that it speaks to what is currently prevailing. This is done to ensure that the law addresses issues which are current at any particular time,” Ndala said.
She said there was also need to amend the CPA to align it with other Acts such as the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets [PPDA] Act and the Financial Intelligence Authority [FIA] Act, which have assigned roles to ACB such as vetting of high-value contracts, asset recovery and lifestyle audits.
She said the bureau has been following up on the proposed amendments with the ministry.
Said Ndala: “The bureau submitted the proposals some time back and looking at the time lapse, the bureau has realised that there is need to include other emerging issues
such as the lifestyle audit, vetting, National Anti-Corruption Strategy, Institutional Integrity Committee, among other provisions, which were not included that time.”
She further explained that when proposals for amendment have been made, there is need for consultations with stakeholders such as members of Parliament [MPs] and other interest groups.
The foot-dragging to anti-graft law reforms comes at a time Transparency International shows that the country’s fight against corruption continues to weaken.
Weekend Nation enquiries indicate that the last CPA review
took place four years ago, when the anti-graft agency submitted 38 proposed amendments to the ministry on April 14 2021.
But prior to the 2021 recommendations, the bureau had submitted several other proposed amendments in 2019, only for the ministry to simply act on single issue, which was Section 6 of the CPA.
The Section primarily revolves around the director of the bureau (the persona), the recruitment process, the duties, the powers and the tenure, among others.
From the 2021 submissions, the ministry has only facilitated amendments on the issue of seeking
consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] and the appointment of the director general.
But Ministry of Justice public relations officer Frank Namangale insisted in an interview on Tuesday that the ministry takes the recommendations and proposals seriously only that implementation involves careful and comprehensive assessment to ensure they align with the overall legal framework and public interest.
He said: “Addressing the proposals issue by issue allows the ministry to focus on the specific implications and practicalities of each recommendation, ensuring that each change is effectively integrated and implemented within the existing legal system.”
Namangale said while the ministry acknowledges the necessity of harmonising the CPA with other relevant legislation, including the PPDA Act and FIA Act, efforts are being made to ensure that the roles and responsibilities assigned to ACB are clearly defined and integrated within the broader legal and regulatory framework.
“The ministry is committed to conducting a comprehensive review of the CPA to ensure that it is aligned with other Acts and effectively supports the bureau’s mandate in combating corruption. While some time has passed since the initial submission of the proposals, the ministry continuously assesses the relevance and applicability of the recommendations.
“The changing legal, social and economic landscape is taken into account, and the ministry remains open to updating and revising the proposals as needed to address current and emerging challenges
in the fight against corruption,” explained Namangale.
But anti-corruption advocate Charles Kajoloweka observed that overall, the commitment to strengthen the anti-corruption fight in the country already vanished.
Kajoloweka, who is national coordinator of the National Anti- Corruption Alliance, further observed that very insignificant steps have been taken on strategic reforms that should have been happening in the anti-corruption space.
“This is an administration that was elected on anti-corruption ticket. They committed to have a comprehensive review and amendment of the laws one of which
was the removal of the presidential immunity on corruption, but to date he has not committed to that reform,” lamented Kajoloweka, who is also executive director of Youth and Society.
He said, moving forward, there was need to ensure stakeholders mount needed pressure on the authorities to generate adequate political will to move the reforms.
Weighing in on the matter on the matter, legal expert Fostino Maele dismissed the ministry’s justification for the delayed implementation, arguing that government generally acts with swiftness on issues it has interests on.
He said there may be so many proposals but government will only push forward those that will either make it popular or the public will be delighted when done.
“That is why you see the issue of seeking consent from the DPP was swiftly pushed to have it amended because it appeared the ACB was being choked to do certain things.
“But for those where the public doesn’t even care about or they think will be very unpopular for government once amended they can’t push them, they will leave them like that… So, if they say they are making consultations, who are they consulting?”
