How can corruption and lack of transparency and accountability be addressed in reconstruction projects? These problems have severely constrained the rebuilding of Sierra Leone’s infrastructure, but neither the channels nor the incentives exist for community members to challenge such practices. This report reviews a Community Oversight Monitoring project (2008-2009), which identified delays in project completion, sub-standard work; and widespread theft of materials. Underlying contributing factors are patronage politics, institutional weakness and a lack of political will to investigate, redress and prevent such problems. Lack of civil society participation, oversight, awareness and consultation entrenches and is perpetuated by these political and institutional factors.
The Community Oversight Monitoring project was undertaken in Tonkolili District, northern Sierra Leone, by the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights. Community stakeholders were trained in investigation, monitoring, auditing and communications. The community monitoring identified three main issues in reconstruction project implementation and contracting, which often involved breaches of the law: (1) delays in project completion; (2) finished projects lacking quality; and (3) theft of materials by both contracted workers and community members in nearly all projects monitored. Further findings are that:
- Information on budgets and contractor details are often extremely difficult to obtain
- Insufficient accountability mechanisms link beneficiaries with the implementing agency, or with the contractor
- The problems relate to both international and national contractors
- Systematic corruption is generating anger among citizens.
To make reconstruction project implementation more effective, transparency and accountability must be increased and corruption reduced. This requires comprehensive community engagement and greater local ownership.
- Information to donors over how funding is being misused needs to make clear the scale of the problem in Sierra Leone across donor partners, and to highlight specific cases to which the relevant donor can respond.
- Donors should focus more on the monitoring of implementing partners (and indirectly the monitoring of contractors), and on the interface between contractors and donors. Investigation, prosecution and the process of redress should be clearly supported by donor partners.
- It is important to concentrate on the procurement process. Donors can be involved by ensuring that: (1) there is no conflict of interest between implementing agencies and contractors; (2) contracting companies pay fair wages to reduce incentives for theft; and (3) implementing partners undertake genuine consultation with community beneficiaries on the choice of contractors used.
- The procurement of contractors should occur before the transfer of funds from donors. Donors must ensure funds are disbursed on time.
- The government should: ensure greater involvement by the Anti-Corruption Commission; ban implementing partners from receiving further contracts if found guilty of failing to oversee contractors; create an independently monitored ‘good practice’ register of contractors; establish, monitor and enforce legislation directed at workers in contracted firms – to ensure fair wages, for example; and give more information and decision-making power to field offices to bring ‘justice’ closer to the community.
