Last week, we took some time to make a point around the importance of arrests of people suspected to have c o m m i t te d corruption offences and whether arrests, as seen in recent times, provide hope that finally, we are on the course to ending corruption. The point advanced was that more investments should be made towards prevention by building a culture of integrity where people hate corruption not because they are scared of being arrested but because they understand that it is essentially bad. We must acknowledge, however, that infusing a culture of integrity in people will take time; hence, short-term measures such as arrests and convictions will continue.

As we reflect over these landmark arrests and possible convictions, I am reminded about a very important question that does not seem to get a very clear and convincing answer. The question relates to management of recovered assets when a corruption criminal is convicted. Section 48 (2) of the Financial Crimes Act (2017) provides relevant courts with the mandate to order for feiture or confiscation of tainted property of a convicted person. The Act also defines tainted property as proceeds, including income or other benefits, from the crime committed.

From recent scandals of corruption such as cash-gate and others where the courts are on record to have successfully convicted corruption criminals it is a normal expectation that beyond the conviction, the proceeds of crime should be returned to government. The Act in Section 99 stipulates for the appointment of an administrator whose roles include taking control and caring for the recovered or confiscated property. Further, the same Act in Section 128 establishes the confiscation fund whose objectives include holding funds and property confiscated or forfeited under the law. Under Section 133 (1), the fund is subjected to the Public F inance Management Act as a way of ensuring accountability.

I n a r e c e n t s t o r y published online in August 2022 by Jameson Chauluka of The Times Group, the author made some efforts to ask questions about the accountability mechanisms f o r c o n f i s c a t e d o r forfeited property based on the provisions of the law, as cited above. All the authorities that he engaged seemed at pain to explain how the law is being fol l owed. For instance, no one could disclose which bank hosts the confiscation fund. Further, the Office of the Auditor General had not yet included the fund in any of the annual audit plans. Perhaps the most plausible answer could be that we have in place good laws whose mode of implementation is yet to be figured out.

Un t i l t h e r e l ev a n t authorities finally agree on how t h e l aw on management of these ‘recovered’ assets is put in practice, there is a huge risk of loss of value on many assets that have been confiscated. The fact that information about how the law is being enforced is scanty suggests lack of determination in our governance institutions and this defeats the sense of urgency and relevance of the anti-cor ruption fight. At the end of the day, all the investment in arresting corruption suspects, prosecuting and putting them in prison will not yield anything in terms of the value of what could be returned to the economy to compensate victims of corruption.

Therefore, as we muse over this matter, there are many assets such as houses, farms, livestock and vehicles within and outside Malawi that must be properly accounted for. Information about all recovered proceeds of corruption must be floated in the public domain. Malawians need to know, by some means, how much money lies in the established confiscation fund. There must be full and proactive disclosure of all existing moveable a n d n o n – m o v e a b l e assets and names of all appointed Administrators that are managing the a s s e t s . M a l a w i a n s should also participate in endorsing, probably through Parliament, the guidelines for deciding how recovered assets are re-channelled for use. Most importantly, public assets recovered from corruption crimi nals should be protected from fur ther risks of being abused through mismanagement or corruption.

The post Accountability over confiscated assets appeared first on The Nation Online.