GII marks time on corruption perception ladder

Ghana has maintained its 2008 score of 3.9 per cent and ranks 69 on the 2009 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) launched on Tuesday by the Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII) in Accra. Ghana also ranked seventh among Africa countries, performing below Botswana (5.6), Mauritius (5.4), Cape Verde (5.1), Seychelles (4.8), South Africa (4.7) and Namibia (4.5). "Although Ghana performed better than 40 other African countries covered by the study, one cannot boast about its performance," Mr Vitus Azeem, Executive Director, GII said at a press conference in Accra. "Ghana's performance is obviously not satisfactory as one does not expect it to remain stagnant, scoring below five for over 10 years since its inclusion in the CPI," he added. Mr Azeem said the current government needed to do more to move the country upwards from where the immediate past government brought the country to. "It also means that the legislations that we have often boasted about have not been successful in addressing the canker of corruption. As a government that has promised transparency and accountability, Ghanaians are looking up to the Atta Mills administration to pull the country up the CPI ladder. Political commitment and exemplary leadership are the catch words," he said. Mr Azeem expressed regret that the CPI specifically mentioned Ghana as among the countries, alongside South Africa and Senegal, where high-profile corruption cases and scandals continued to be regularly reported, with the Mabey and Johnson case and the allegations surrounding the Vodafone transaction as examples in Ghana. He stressed that Ghana needed institutions of oversight and legal frameworks that are actually enforced, coupled with smarter, more effective regulations to achieve lower levels of corruption. "This will hopefully lead to a much needed increase of trust in public institutions, sustained economic growth and more effective development assistance. Most importantly, it will reduce the levels of poverty among the majority of Ghanaians," he noted. In Africa, Mr Azeem indicated that 31 out of 47 countries and territories south of the Sahara, which were included in this year's CPI, scored less than three out of 10, indicating that corruption was perceived rampant. "Only 13 countries scored between three and five, indicating that corruption is perceived as a serious challenge by country experts and businessmen in the region. As in 2008, only three countries scored more than five; Botswana, Mauritius and Cape Verde. Thus the overall picture remains one of serious corruption challenge across the region", the Executive Director said. The CPI has since 1995 been published by Transparency International with the aim of drawing governments' attention to the citizens' perception of the status of corruption in their countries. The GII, the local chapter of TI, has also launched the CPI since its inception in 1999. Mr Azeem explained that the CPI 2009 covering 180 countries, the same number as last year's edition, has New Zealand topping the list of the least corrupt countries with a score of 9.4, followed by Denmark (9.3), Singapore (9.2), Sweden (9.2) and Switzerland (9.0). He noted that among the 2009 CPI top scorers were several European Union members and other Western European states whose good performances could be attributed to the international efforts such as the UN Convention against Corruption and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention against bribery and their commitment to the conventions. Mr Azeem said in the Americas, 10 countries scored above five with Canada, remaining at the top of the list and the United States remaining stable at 7.5. In the Asian countries, there was a decrease in the scores of 13 countries from the 32 countries/territories in the region, along with a reduction in the number of countries that scored above five in the 2009 CPI. He said corruption had dire implications for a country and so low scoring countries needed to take the CPI results seriously and act "now" to strengthen accountability in public institutions.