LIFESTYLE AUDIT: IS IT A PANACEA TO FIGHT CORRUPTION?

Corruption in public spaces has become so endemic and too sophisticated that a paper trail is no longer good enough to offer leads to culprits. Outright impropriety has been replaced by an elaborate network that involved systematic steps taken to hide corruption footprints. It is becoming absolutely hard to find raw corruption in the face of new advanced means of graft in both public and private entities.

The fraud is integrated in the budgeting process from the start. The figures are justified at each stage of approval and ends up in the final figure at the level of execution. The latest budgeting systems are segmented to reflect different stages of planning, implementation, appraisal and review. Since the system is elaborate, auditing of the project is cumbersome which abets budgeted corruption.

Budgeted corruption makes it hard to identify areas of pilferage since the wrong figures are systematically embedded in the real figures. The technical team will justify each penny as part of the cost, well aware that the figures are inflated. In public offices like parliament, members who sit on oversight committees, have been found wanting in the execution of this role and even those who have managed to identify the mischief have been adversely accused of connivance. These allegations may not be substantiated with empirical data, but the sudden change in their lifestyle renders credence to this assertion. It is this dilemma that calls for a lifestyle audit of public officers’ lifestyle rather than physical assets that may have been acquired fraudulently.

Recently, parliament has come under spotlight over allegations of massive misappropriation of public funds by both the speaker Anita Annet Among and other MPs on accountability committees like Joel Ssenyonyi the current Leader of the Opposition in parliament (LOP). It is clear the level of investment by these two personalities isn’t commensurate with their known pay. Still with this pay, they can afford to have massive investments yet there is no specific act of impropriety that can be pointed out. This therefore calls for a lifestyle audit.

These two could only be a microcosm of the wider society pervaded by allegations of corruption. The general feeling is that public figures live large, yet there are no known investments or a fat paycheck. Public service is famed for meager pay, but the level of opulence exhibited by the officers doesn’t reflect this fact. If corruption is to be fought, there is need for a radical departure from auditing of people’s net worth based on known income to opulence.

Joel Ssenyonyi as former chairperson of Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has been adversely mentioned in extortion scandals from public entities that have come before him and his committee. The massive investments in apartments renders credence to these allegations. The challenge faced here is that since most of these assets are registered in other people’s names, it is hard to stick out the allegations, but certainly not farfetched.

Lifestyle audit, takes into account those things that reflect the the standard of living of a typical public officer. The family standard of living, schools children attend, the family home, the type of vehicles driven, the domestic staff employed and other vestiges that reflect opulence. It is common for a public officer who earns a miserable pay, having 5 kids attending international schools, having regular foreign vacations, fleet of high end vehicles etc. certainly, this is a pointer to impropriety.

In Kenya, any public figure nominated for an office during the vetting process, is asked to reveal his net worth openly. This is kept on file for comparison in future. In Uganda, declaration is done at IGG and the content is confidential. This cushions the public officer from public scrutiny. As a way of lifestyle audit, these files must be made public.  In Uganda, political greenhorns like Joel Ssenyonyi have suddenly transformed into multi-millionaires overnight.

When President Museveni revealed that some MPs were conniving with Ministry of Finance officials to inflate the national budget, a quick search revealed massive investments by the people of interest registered in names of close relatives. As a policy, can it be possible to lift the veil over businesses, properties of public officers registered in pseudo names? There is a widespread view that most arcades, schools, taxis, boda-bodas and booming businesses are owned by public officials, but no serious effort has been invested in finding out the truth. The economic crimes unit that looks at corruption from the face value must change tact to incorporate lifestyle audit.

Sometimes, it is not that public officials have direct connection to the budget process, but they may be attached to service providers or contractors who part with a certain percentage of the proceeds of a contract. There should be a link between lifestyle and the projects under the supervision of a specific public officer. Part of the reason certain projects have poor quality results is because of kick-backs. A big chunk of working capital is heaved off as bribes. In the event that poor quality work is done, both the contractor or service provider and the supervisor must be held accountable, because there is a high chance there was connivance during the execution.

The fight against corruption needs a multi-pronged approach involving the convectional means and lifestyle audit mechanisms. Lifestyle audit offers an opportunity to delve further into things that aren’t tangible but the sudden change in ostentatious living. It is not easy to manage ‘arrivalism’ by a corrupt official, it is easily discernible. However, the law must be changed to reflect the new realities of fighting modern graft. The existing laws have gaps, where it is too hard to link ill-gotten wealth to a property not registered in his names, but family members or close buddies.