According to the President's statement, "the law should create a foundation for the formation of institutions to fight bribery as well as corruption in general."
Somalia has a very high level of corruption, even compared to other African countries. Since 2006, the country has received the lowest score in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index after Yemen, South Sudan and Syria, and currently ranks last among 200 countries in Trace International's Bribery Risk Index and among 190 countries in the World Bank's World Business Environment Rankings.
Along with high levels of corruption, the country's living standards remain extremely low, with more than half of its twelve million people living well below the poverty line (less than $1.90 a day), according to the World Bank.
The Somali government expects the new law to help fight fraud and launch the recovery process after decades of economic chaos, civil war and Islamist insurgency. According to the authorities, the creation of anti-corruption commissions will help block bribe-taking channels among government officials.
Finance Minister Abdirahman Bale called the signing of the anti-corruption bill a "historic event" for Somalia, and the president said the formation of independent ethics and anti-corruption commissions was a "top priority."
However, despite the loud statements of the President and the Government, the principles and mechanism of functioning of the established anti-corruption commissions remain unclear. It should be borne in mind that one of the goals of the adoption of the new law for the Somali authorities is to improve the international image of the country and win the confidence of international donors - the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank - in order to receive financial support.
Based on global practice, it is worth noting that the establishment of effective specialized anti-corruption institutions is a time-consuming and non-linear process that requires compliance with many conditions. Thus, the UN and Council of Europe anti-corruption conventions establish several criteria for the effectiveness of such institutions, including:
-
independence: protection from undue political influence;
-
specialization: trained personnel with specific knowledge and experience and special powers in the field of anti-corruption;
-
resources and authority: the staff of the authorities must be provided with everything they need to work effectively.
In addition to these criteria, the national context, cultural, legal and administrative specificities of each state must be taken into account. Therefore, the establishment of specialized bodies alone does not guarantee the unambiguous success of anti-corruption efforts in general. While there is a trend towards the establishment of such institutions around the world, the results of their work often cannot be characterized as unambiguously successful.
In most democratic countries, the traditional functions of anti-corruption bodies are distributed among existing state institutions. The idea of creating a specialized body coordinating anti-corruption activities stems from the assumption that such a system does not allow such bodies to effectively carry out preventive and repressive functions. However, a separate anti-corruption body created in a corrupt country must itself be immune to corruption and politically motivated to initiate criminal proceedings
Despite the existence of successful examples of specialized anti-corruption bodies in some states, the expediency of their creation remains a debatable issue in the professional community. In any case, when choosing a model for implementing anti-corruption functions in a particular state, whether it is their distribution among existing institutions or the creation of a separate specialized body, it is necessary not only to base the choice on the analysis of accumulated international experience, but also to take into account political, cultural and political factors, such as the political, economic, social, economic, social and cultural factors.