Day

The Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-SA) relieson donations from well-wishers. There are many ways you can use to donate in cash or in-kind.

Write to the Chairperson or Director of ACT-SA through the following contact

Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-Southern Africa)
Number 16, 2nd Avenue,
P.O Box 93 Kwekwe Zimbabwe
Call Us: +2635525235/+263717152535+26377330283

Write us:
director@anticorruptiontrust.org OR
boardchair@anticorruptiontrust.org

Year Publication Download
2018 THE STATE OF ELECTORAL FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN THE RUN-UP TO THE JULY 2018 GENERAL ELECTIONS IN ZIMBABWE Click Here
2017 REPORT ON THE CAPTURE OF ZIMBABWEAN TRADITIONAL LEADERS FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY Click Here
2017 ZANU PF abusing and politicising civil servants Click Here
2012 Let us not pay lip service to anti-corruption initiatives -Anti-
Corruption Day
Click Here
2012 Stealing from the state and impoverishing the nation: Zimbabwean traffic police officers pocketing huge sums of money through bribes at checkpoints Click Here
2012 Corruption cases: Lest we forget: bad leadership examples for accountability, transparency and integrity in Zimbabwe Click Here
2011 Barriers towards combating corruption in Africa Click Here
2010 More seriousness is needed in fighting corruption: Step-up all current efforts Click Here
2010 Mini-assessment report: Corruption by traffic police officers and vehicle drivers in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe Click Here
2010 Land scandal in Harare Click Here
2010 Mass-scale corruption at Chitungwiza town council in Zimbabwe -government urged to recover all stolen assets and confiscate ill-gotten wealth Click Here
2009 Petition to investigate the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe and its principle officials Click Here
2009 Request to set up Commission of Enquiry into the conduct ZEC in the 2008 elections Click Here
2009 Rewarding the losers -A case study of the Kenya and Zimbabwe electoral commissions Click Here
2008 Institutional working definition of corruption Click Here
2007 Status of signature & ratification of Anti-Corruption treaties by SADC State parties Click Here

THE ROLE/MANDATE OF NATIONAL CSOs ANTI-CORRUPTION FOCAL POINTS IN RELATIONS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVITIES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

It has been noted with great concern that there is no single country in Southern Africa, particularly, the SADC Member States, that is free from corruption. Corruption takes many forms and is prevalent at all levels.

The 2018 State of Corruption in Southern Africa report by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-SA) gives painful evidence of the acts of corruption and millions of tax payers money lost due to these acts. Indeed, corruption is a threat to peace, development, democracy, rule of law, and security to name but a few.

The economic transformation of Africa has succumbed to corruption, including illicit financial flows. Estimates by the AU and the ECA in the 2016 Report of the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa shows that, illicit financial flows in Africa over the past 50 years exceeds $1 trillion, an amount nearly matching the total ODA received by Africa over the same period.

Additionally, approximately $50 billion is lost from Africa annually through illicit financial flows instead of augmenting domestic resource mobilization and investment. In response to the costly effects of corruption, the UN adopted the United Nations Convention against Corruption At a regional level, the AU enacted the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, set up the AU Advisory Board on Corruption, and enacted the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance to name but a few.

At sub-regional level, SADC introduced the SADC Protocol against Corruption as a way of preventing, identifying, penalizing and stamping out corruption. At national level, nearly all Southern African Member States have established bodies, institutions and legislatures meant to eliminate corruption. Despite these concerted efforts, corruption in Southern Africa has continued unabatedly.

Corruption is worsened by the leaders who do not walk the talk, leadership that it corrupt, impunity against corruption, limited opportunities to share anti-corruption good practices and limited technical support to governments to domesticate anti-corruption treaties that they signed and ratified.

That said, this initiative has been made to complement existing efforts towards eradicating corruption to stimulate socio-economic development in Southern Africa.

  • Against all this are the following challenges;
  • Lack of a regional anti-corruption forum;
  • Limited or no solidarity on critical anti-corruption issues;
  • Weak interaction between and among NGOs in Southern Africa on anti-corruption issues;
  • Limited avenues on the exchange anti-corruption good practices;

In keeping with the above, ACT-SA embarked on an initiative to bring together NGOs from SADC Member States to begin a process of learning from each and hence these Terms and Conditions. These Terms and Conditions define the proposed activities of identified CSOs working in the SADC Member States.

  1. To act as the ACT-SA focal points in the respective SADC Member States;
  2. To share anti-corruption good practices and lessons learnt from their respective countries with ACT-SA and other CSOs;
  3. To compile national reports on the state of corruption in the respective member states;
  4. To implement anti-corruption programmes and projects supported by partners
  5. To produce shadow reports on the state of corruption and the respective countries’ commitment to fight corruption in the most effective, efficient and sustainable manner;
  6. To support the implementation of the ACT-SA Strategic Plan in the respective countries;
  7. To review the extent of domestication and/or enforcement of anti-corruption treaties such as the UNCAC signed and ratified by the respective member states;
  8. To act in solidarity with other CSOs on certain critical issues obtaining in their respective countries;
  9. To support regional anti-corruption advocacy efforts;
  10. To lobby for the revival of the SADC Tribunal with an additional mandate to preside over corruption cases or alternatively lobby for the establishment of a Regional Anti-Corruption Court and national anti-corruption courts in the respective countries;
  11. To support efforts towards the recovery of externalized resources
  12. To organize and implement joint anti-corruption actives in Southern Africa.
  13. To provide anti-corruption laws, policies, reports and court judgments from the respective SADC Member states for the online anti-corruption resource centre
  14. To support the compilation of a regional blacklist of individuals and entities convicted of corruption;
  15. To execute any other activities that ACT-SA and the respective CSOs shall decide.

About the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa

The Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-SA) is a regional anti-corruption lobby group that campaigns against corruption in both the private and private sectors in Southern Africa. It was registered to contribute to the eradication of corruption in the SADC Member States.

How to join the Network

CSOs from Angola, Botswana, Comoros, DRC, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe interested in the initiative should complete the attached questionnaire and return it by e-mail to:

The Regional Director, 
Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-SA),
Number 16, 2ndAvenue, Kwekwe, Zimbabwe.
E-mail director@anticorruptiontrust.org
Tel: +263 (55) 2525235

Signature and Ratification of the SADC Protocol against Corruption (SPAC) by SADC Member States

The Protocol is one of the flagship instruments of the SADCfor preventing and combating corruption in the region. The SPAC was signed by 14 SADC Heads of State and Government in Malawi on 14 August 2001. The current status is as shown below:

Country Heads of State and Government Date of
signing
Date of Ratification,
Acceptance (A),
Approval (AA),
Accession (a),
Succession (d)
Angola H.E. Joao Lourenço 14 August 2001 17 July 2005
Botswana H.E. Mr. Mokgweetsi Eric Keabetswe Masisi 14 August 2001 14 August 2001
Comoros
DRC H.E. Felix Antoine Tshisekedi Tshilombo 14 August 2001 19 May 2008
Lesotho His Royal Highness King Letsie III 14 August 2001 29 July 2003
Madagascar H. E. RAJAONARIMAMPIANINA Hery Martial No In an e-mail to ACT-SA dated 23 May 2017, the SADCNational Contact Point under the Directorate of Regional Integration in the
Ministry of Foreign affairs in Anosy, Antananarivo Madagascar claimed that they ratified it in 2007
Malawi His Excellency Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika 14 August 2001 2 September 2002
Mauritius AmeenahGurib-Fakim, GCSK, CSK, PhD 14 August 2001 4 January 2002
Mozambique H.E. Filipe Nyusi 14 August 2001 28 December 2007
Namibia H.E. Dr. Hage Geingob 14 August 2001 23 June 2005
Seychelles H.E.Danny Faure 14 August 2001 No
South Africa H.E. Cyril Ramaphosa 14 August 2001 15 May 2003
Eswatini His Majesty, King MswatiIII 14 August 2001 1 August 2006
Tanzania H.E. Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli 14 August 2001 20 August 2003
Zambia H.E. Edgar Lungu 14 August 2001 8 July 2003
Zimbabwe H.E. Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa 14 August 2001 11 October 2004


Signature and Ratification of the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC) by SADC Member States

The AUCPCC, which entered into force on 5 August 2006, was adopted by the 2nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU) in Maputo, Mozambique on 11 July 2003. According to the African Union (2010:2) as at the 6thof August 2010, the AUCPCC had been signed by 45-member states and ratified by 31 members only

As at 17 February 2018, the African Union Advisory Board on Corruption advised that thirty-nine (39) Member States had ratified and therefore, are State Parties to the Convention. These included: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Kenya, Libya, Lesotho,Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Niger, Rwanda, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The following are not State Parties to the AUCPCC: Democratic Republic of Congo; Mauritius; and Eswatini.

The current status of SADC Member states is shown below:

Country Heads of State and Government Date of
signing
Date of Ratification,
Acceptance (A),
Approval (AA),
Accession (a),
Succession (d)
Angola H.E. Joao Lourenço 22 January 2007 20/12/2017
Botswana H.E. Mr. Mokgweetsi Eric Keabetswe Masisi No 14/05/2014
Comoros
DRC H.E. Felix Antoine Tshisekedi Tshilombo 5 December 2003 No
Lesotho His Royal Highness King Letsie III 27 February 2004 26 October 2004
Madagascar H. E. RAJAONARIMAMPIANINA Hery Martial 28 February 2004 6 October 2004
Malawi His Excellency Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika No 26 November 2007
Mauritius AmeenahGurib-Fakim, GCSK, CSK, PhD 6 July 2004 No
Mozambique H.E. Filipe Nyusi 15 December 2003 2 August 2006
Namibia H.E. Dr. Hage Geingob 9 December 2003 5 August 2004
Seychelles H.E.Danny Faure No 1 June 2008
South Africa H.E. Cyril Ramaphosa 16 March 2004 11 November 2005
Eswatini His Majesty, King MswatiIII 7 December 2004 No
Tanzania H.E. Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli 5 November 2003 22 February 2005
Zambia H.E. Edgar Lungu 03 August 2005 30 March 2007
Zimbabwe H.E. Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa 18 November 2003 17 December 2006


Signature and Ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) by SADC Member States

According to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (2018), all the SADC Member States ratified the UNCAC on the dates reflected below. However, Botswana and DRC chose to ratify before signing.

Country Heads of State and Government Date of
signing
Date of Ratification,
Acceptance (A),
Approval (AA),
Accession (a),
Succession (d)
Angola H.E. Joao Lourenço 10 December 2003 29 August 2006
Botswana H.E. Mr. Mokgweetsi Eric Keabetswe Masisi No 27 June 2011
Comoros
DRC H.E. Felix Antoine Tshisekedi Tshilombo No 23 September 2010
Lesotho His Royal Highness King Letsie III 16 September 2005 16 September 2005
Madagascar H. E. RAJAONARIMAMPIANINA Hery Martial 10 December 2003 22 September 2004
Malawi His Excellency Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika 21 September 2004 4 December 2007
Mauritius AmeenahGurib-Fakim, GCSK, CSK, PhD 9 December 2003 15 December 2004
Mozambique H.E. Filipe Nyusi 25 May 2004 9 April 2008
Namibia H.E. Dr. Hage Geingob 9 December 2003 3 August 2004
Seychelles H.E.Danny Faure 27 February 2004 16 March 2006
South Africa H.E. Cyril Ramaphosa 9 December 2003 22 November 2004
Eswatini His Majesty, King MswatiIII 15 September 2005 24 September 2012
Tanzania H.E. Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli 9 December 2003 25 May 2005
Zambia H.E. Edgar Lungu 11 December 2003 7 December 200
Zimbabwe H.E. Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa 20 February 2004 8 March 2007

Individuals and entities convicted of corruption are automatically entered into this blacklist. Without prejudice to existing blacklists such as the World Bank’s blacklist, this blacklist targets individuals and entities in Southern Africa. Let it be made clear that all those who enter into business with individuals and entities who are part of this list will face clear consequences.

It shall comply that they are equally corrupt and may lose important business opportunities. Considering the deleterious effects of corruption on development, it is expected that different stakeholders should rally behind each other in support of these anti-corruption efforts.

Due diligence should be carried to ensure that no business or employment contract is entered into with an individual and entity that i spart of this Blacklist. The compilation of this Blacklist is guided by the following Policy of the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-SA).

ACT-SA Blacklisting Policy

Purpose:

The purpose of the policy is to give guidance on how the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-Southern Africa) compiles a list of blacklisted companies and individuals. The policy is made to guide the staff and other interested stakeholders in the practice.

Characteristics of a “Blacklisting” or “Debarment” Mechanism

Debarment is a process whereby, on the basis of pre-established grounds, a company or, an individual, is prevented from engaging in further contracts, business or employment for a specified period of time.

Debarment may be preceded by a warning of future exclusion should the conduct persist, the conduct be repeated, or occur under aggravated circumstances. An investigation that could lead to debarment may be triggered by an existing judicial decision, or when there is strong evidence of unethical or unlawful professional or business behaviour. Many debarment systems today have adopted the latter practice as judicial decisions are often slow to obtain.

The key function of debarment is prevention and deterrence. Since the instrument isprimarily preventive it is designed to give the following:

  • Fairness and accountability: Clear rules and procedures are established and made known to all the parties involved ahead of time. The process gives firms and individuals an adequate opportunity to defend themselves.
  • Transparency: Sanctions and the rules regarding the process are made public in order to minimise the risk of the debarment system being subjected to manipulation or pressure. To this end the outcomes are publicised. Contracting authorities and export credit agencies need to be given access to detailed information from the debarment list so that they can carry out due diligence on potential contractors.
  • This process is especially complicated because owners of debarred companies may simply start up a new company operating under a new name. Up-to-date public debarment lists can help procurement officers and due diligence analysts keep track of such cases. Publicity also has an important impact on the legitimacy, credibility and accountability of debarment agencies, and facilitates monitoring by independent parties. The information made public in debarment lists needs to include the company or individual’s name, the grounds for investigation, the name of the project, the country of origin of sanctioned firms or individuals, as well as the rules governing the process.
  • Functionality: Publicly available debarment lists facilitate electronic matching and other information-sharing features that organisations already have in place. Systems could be interconnected internationally, for example, among development banks, or between countries. Such networking may even reduce operating costs, and make systems more effective.
  • Timeliness: Debarment systems should be timely
  • Proportionality: One of the key arguments is that debarment has to be proportionate.

List of matters pending investigations with a possibility that once convictions are made, the individuals and entities involved enter the blacklist. The Individuals and entities listed here under are not blacklisted per se but will be blacklisted as soon as they get convicted.

Ref Name Country Summary of the allegations Authorities handling the matter Status of the investigations and prosecution

The following individuals and entities are blacklisted

Ref Name Country Summary of the allegations Authorities handling the matter Status of the investigations and prosecution