Transparency International's mischief - by Editor
Related Stories
Font Size
20 Nov 2009
"NAMIBIA highly corrupt" - screamed a newspaper headline in one of the local dailies this week, prompting many Namibians to wonder whether t...
John ya Otto: The firebrand (1938 to 1994)
20 Nov 2009
Although he entered politics reluctantly, John ya Otto's life would become a quest to effect independence in Namibia.
WINDHOEK â...
WINDHOEK â...
"NAMIBIA highly corrupt" - screamed a newspaper headline in one of the local dailies this week, prompting many Namibians to wonder whether this is the Namibia they know or another country.
The cause for bewilderment is simple. "Highly corrupt" implies that corruption in Namibia is endemic and out of control. Highly corrupt would be understood to mean that the situation is beyond measure. It suggests that corruption is institutionalised and is a way of life or a way to do business in the country. And that is where the puzzle lies.
Transparency International is the source of this mischief. What informs Transparency International's finding and the criteria it used to arrive at this verdict is mystery.
And short of a credible and practical mechanism used to arrive at this determination, we submit that Transparency International's finding is based on perception and does not hold water.
Many Namibians and people of goodwill around the world just like ourselves will contest the notion that this country is highly corrupt for a number of reasons.
In the first place, the findings by Transparency International are not based on solid indicators of corruption but rather veer towards emotional ranting, as no data is provided to substantiate this notion or factually prove the ranking.
Meanwhile, contrast this finding by Transparency International with two separate studies â€" the 2009 Index of African Governance and the 2009 Ibrahim Index of African Governance in October this year that ranked Namibia among the three "best governed" countries in southern Africa.
The one study, the 2009 Index of African Governance conducted by Harvard University scored Namibia at 69.2 points thereby ranking the country second-best governed in southern Africa.
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance study on the other hand scored Namibia at 68.8 points, thereby ranking Namibia best-governed country at number three spot.
The Harvard Index rated governance according to five key areas â€" safety and security, rule of law, transparency and corruption while the Ibrahim Index study looked at safety and rule of law, participation and human rights, sustainable economic opportunity and human development.
Now somebody please explain to us how a "best-governed" country at number two and three spots respectively can be "highly corrupt". This defies logic does it not?
Besides Namibia exudes so much business confidence with a lot of businesses posting significant profits even at a time when the world economy is experiencing serious problems.
Certainly, there is a mismatch between the expression "highly corrupt" and reality on the ground.
Namibia is able to attract reputable foreign investors and does business with the rest of the world unhindered, a sign of prudent management of both politics and the economy.
A "highly corrupt" country cannot become a favoured business destination for reputable companies such as evident in mining and other sectors. To suggest otherwise is to regard business people who come to Namibia as fools, which they are not.
To say the least, this is an overstatement and an exaggeration. Corruption is a scourge that knows no boundaries and Namibia has had its own fair share of problems in this regard. However, the country has not sunk that low to earn the "highly corrupt" status. In fact, all indicators are there to show that the country cannot be classified as corrupt let alone "highly corrupt".
In 2000 already, Namibia signed the Convention Against Trans-national Organised Crime and ratified it in 2002/2001 and it signed the SADC Protocol Against Corruption, ratifying it in 2004. The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption was signed in 2003 and ratified the following year and similarly, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
At home, the country has put up legal instruments to curb the scourge of corruption starting with the passing of the Anti-Corruption Act in 2003, the Prevention of Organised Crime in 2004 and the Financial Intelligence Act of 2007 among other legislations. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has since its formation seen its budget allocation go up N$6.5 million in 2006/7, N$11.2 million during the 2007/8 budget, N$14.1 million during the 2008/9 budget and N$26.9 million during the current budget.
Major alleged corruption cases are currently before court including Avid, the Scanner case etc while the N$100 million ODC case is before the Prosecutor General. Surely, these examples attest to efforts to eradicate corruption and prove Transparency International's so-called ranking a lie.
Back to Top
The cause for bewilderment is simple. "Highly corrupt" implies that corruption in Namibia is endemic and out of control. Highly corrupt would be understood to mean that the situation is beyond measure. It suggests that corruption is institutionalised and is a way of life or a way to do business in the country. And that is where the puzzle lies.
Transparency International is the source of this mischief. What informs Transparency International's finding and the criteria it used to arrive at this verdict is mystery.
And short of a credible and practical mechanism used to arrive at this determination, we submit that Transparency International's finding is based on perception and does not hold water.
Many Namibians and people of goodwill around the world just like ourselves will contest the notion that this country is highly corrupt for a number of reasons.
In the first place, the findings by Transparency International are not based on solid indicators of corruption but rather veer towards emotional ranting, as no data is provided to substantiate this notion or factually prove the ranking.
Meanwhile, contrast this finding by Transparency International with two separate studies â€" the 2009 Index of African Governance and the 2009 Ibrahim Index of African Governance in October this year that ranked Namibia among the three "best governed" countries in southern Africa.
The one study, the 2009 Index of African Governance conducted by Harvard University scored Namibia at 69.2 points thereby ranking the country second-best governed in southern Africa.
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance study on the other hand scored Namibia at 68.8 points, thereby ranking Namibia best-governed country at number three spot.
The Harvard Index rated governance according to five key areas â€" safety and security, rule of law, transparency and corruption while the Ibrahim Index study looked at safety and rule of law, participation and human rights, sustainable economic opportunity and human development.
Now somebody please explain to us how a "best-governed" country at number two and three spots respectively can be "highly corrupt". This defies logic does it not?
Besides Namibia exudes so much business confidence with a lot of businesses posting significant profits even at a time when the world economy is experiencing serious problems.
Certainly, there is a mismatch between the expression "highly corrupt" and reality on the ground.
Namibia is able to attract reputable foreign investors and does business with the rest of the world unhindered, a sign of prudent management of both politics and the economy.
A "highly corrupt" country cannot become a favoured business destination for reputable companies such as evident in mining and other sectors. To suggest otherwise is to regard business people who come to Namibia as fools, which they are not.
To say the least, this is an overstatement and an exaggeration. Corruption is a scourge that knows no boundaries and Namibia has had its own fair share of problems in this regard. However, the country has not sunk that low to earn the "highly corrupt" status. In fact, all indicators are there to show that the country cannot be classified as corrupt let alone "highly corrupt".
In 2000 already, Namibia signed the Convention Against Trans-national Organised Crime and ratified it in 2002/2001 and it signed the SADC Protocol Against Corruption, ratifying it in 2004. The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption was signed in 2003 and ratified the following year and similarly, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
At home, the country has put up legal instruments to curb the scourge of corruption starting with the passing of the Anti-Corruption Act in 2003, the Prevention of Organised Crime in 2004 and the Financial Intelligence Act of 2007 among other legislations. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has since its formation seen its budget allocation go up N$6.5 million in 2006/7, N$11.2 million during the 2007/8 budget, N$14.1 million during the 2008/9 budget and N$26.9 million during the current budget.
Major alleged corruption cases are currently before court including Avid, the Scanner case etc while the N$100 million ODC case is before the Prosecutor General. Surely, these examples attest to efforts to eradicate corruption and prove Transparency International's so-called ranking a lie.
Back to Top
Copyright 2008 ©New Era Publications . All rights reserved.| Site Designed and Hosted by Omalaeti Technologies | Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Contact Us
