Those who hastily concluded that Operation Sparrow Hawk had either broken its wings, or lost its ability to swoop on corrupt officials, may have got it all wrong. More than two years after the first spectacular arrest of high profile corrupt government officials and the ensuing protracted trials that initially whetted public appetite, public interest in the operation is gradually waning as many have discovered that the whole exercise may only be cosmetic.
After months of futile media speculations, Operation Sparrow Hawk is back. This time its victims include two former ministers who had long been tried and condemned in the court of public opinion. These former ministers' flamboyant lifestyles and insolent display of wealth was not only provocative and insulting in a country where more than three quarters of the population is living below the poverty line, but also forced many to start questioning the mechanism used in determining who corrupt officials are. Many started clamouring that those behind the operation should readjust its detection lens, for in the public eye, it was selectively defective.
It is no longer news in Cameroon to learn that a minister once considered "untouchable" has been arrested. After the former director general of FEICOM, Emmanuel Gerald Ondo Ndong, it is now the turn of the former Minister of the Economy and Finance, Polycarp Abah Abah. The court has ordered that over FCFA 100 billion be returned to the State by those who have been found guilty of misappropriating public resources. Not a franc has been recovered so far! If it has, then the public is still to be told. In a State of law such a blatant contravention of a court order is inadmissible.
Operation Sparrow Hawk's focus should not only be in arresting those who have embezzled State funds, but only in ensuring that every franc that has been illicitly swindled be recovered. If not, the present exercise will be nothing short of the institutionalisation and compensation of a culture of pilfering.
Nigeria like Cameroon is a country that is suffering from a serious problem of public morality and the embezzlement of State resources. Billions of Naira have been shipped out of that country and starched away in foreign banks. In its effort to curb the scandalous and shameless embezzlement of public funds, Nigeria's anti-corruption commission has put in place what can be described as the Nigerian Anti-corruption Model.
In a nutshell it consists of a hotline where people make anonymous calls providing information about suspected embezzlement practices. These are investigated by the commission to determine the veracity of claims made. The Model has been largely successful as the cover has either been blown off many corruption cases or planned deals simply foiled. Cameroon could learn from the Nigerian experience.
One of the strengths of this approach resides in the fact that most embezzlement deals in Cameroon are carried out by carefully laid out networks. Many of the collaborators of these corrupt officials know what is going on, but can do nothing to stop them. This approach could empower those who want to anonymously come forward to denounce corrupt practices.
Sceptics would, however, argue that it is not a duplication of anti-corruption structures that will put an end to Cameroon's growing culture of swindling State funds. There are already anti-corruption commissions in most ministries- some even installed by those being accused of corruption today. There are other structures like ANIF, CONAC, the audit bench of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Supreme State Control. Would another structure not only be one too many, sceptics could ask.
Cameroon's corruption dilemma is systemic.
There is practically no sector in this country that has not been blighted by corruption. The question many are asking is how could the powers that be have allowed the situation to degenerate to this extent? The present regime's lukewarm attitude to the alarm raised by early whistle-blowers may have encouraged the generalised siphoning of State funds. If this were not the case, how could individuals, who had wrecked considerable economic havoc in previously held positions, be appointed to higher portfolios even against public outcries? The message was clear to kleptomaniacs- stay the course and they did?
As a result, a few economic miscreants apprehended for embezzlement are richer than several of Cameroon's ministries put together. The key shortcoming with Cameroon's financial system, which encourages embezzlement, lies in weak or non-existent auditing procedure. There is the need to overhaul it, so those who violate it should be named and shamed early enough before they swell the ranks of State swindlers. But, before we throw stones at these people, it is important asking if we would have behaved differently if we were in one of these people's shoes?
Comments