Rwanda News Agency

The office of the Ombudsman has strongly contested a report by transparency International that ranked Rwanda in the 121st position out of 163 countries in the world with regard to corruption perception, RNA has established.

The report awarded Rwanda 2.3 marks out of 10 although, as the Ombudsman puts it, are unfair contrary to Rwandan government efforts categorically stressing that it is committed to "fight corruption in all its forms”.

The TI Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite survey, reflecting the perceptions of business people and country analysts, both resident and non-resident. A survey conducted on Rwanda indicated that businesses feel more secure than they could be in all the regional countries.

A Press statement from the office of the Ombudsman, says that it is neither pleased by the 3 marks awarded to Rwanda in the year 2005 considering the strong efforts by the government to fight corruption in the country.

The release reads in part that the “dissatisfaction” with the 2005 Transparency report “inspired the government of Rwanda to intensify its efforts in the fight against corruption” through its institutions entrusted with transparency and good governance.

On November 6, Transparency International (TI) released its 2006 annual Corruption perception Index (CPI) that points to a “strong correlation between corruption and poverty”, with a concentration of impoverished states at the bottom of the ranking.

TI Brazil, Cuba, Israel, Jordan, Laos, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and the United States as Countries with a significant worsening in perceived levels of corruption include. Countries with a significant improvement in perceived levels of corruption included; Algeria, Czech Republic, India, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Mauritius, Paraguay, Slovenia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uruguay.

The Rwanda Ombudsman says different neutral international organisations and the diplomatic Corps have carried out studies on the corruption level of different countries and have recognised the strong efforts by the government of Rwanda to fight corruption.

On behalf of Rwanda, Ombudsman puts it, Transparency International has been requested to avail the criteria used in the course of awarding such marks so that neutral experts can be able to confirm the marks which would also help government to identify and improve Rwanda’s performance standards in the fight against corruption.

Meanwhile the Rwanda government has taken the opportunity to thank Transparency International for the efforts used to uproot corruption worldwide, and ensures its entire support and collaboration in the fight against the pandemic.

On the general Index, cconcentration of so-called ‘failed states’ is apparent at the bottom of the ranking. Iraq has sunk to second-to-last place, with pre-war survey data no longer included in this year’s CPI. Intermediaries who began operating during the United Nations Oil-for-food programme continue to play a central role in driving corruption. The Volcker Commission reported that 2,392 companies paid kickbacks or made other illicit payments to the Saddam Hussein regime in the context of the programme, often through intermediaries.

While the industrialised countries score relatively high on the CPI 2006, we continue to see major corruption scandals in many of these countries. Although corruption in this context may have less of an impact on poverty and development than in developing countries, these scandals demonstrate that there is no room for complacency.

The weak performance of many countries, according to TI indicates that the facilitators of corruption continue to assist political elites to launder, store and otherwise profit from unjustly acquired wealth, which often includes looted state assets.

“The presence of willing intermediaries - who are often trained in or who operate from leading economies -- encourages corruption; it means the corrupt know there will be a banker, accountant, lawyer or other specialist ready to help them generate, move or store their illicit income.” TI said.

Kenya’s Anglo-Leasing and related scandals presents a case in point, where the misappropriation of public funds was enabled through fraudulent contracts using sophisticated shell companies and bank accounts in European and off-shore jurisdictions, according to John Githongo, Kenya’s former anti-corruption tsar. And according to TI Kenya’s Kenya Bribery Index, bribery costs Kenyans about US $1 billion each year, yet more than half live on less than US $2 per day.

Rwanda’s dismissal comes in addition to that of Kenya that rubbished the TI Index as biased and not representative of the “commendable” anti corruption measures by the Kenyan Government.

At 121, Rwanda only fares regionally against Kenya at 142, the Democratic Republic of Congo - 155 and Burundi at 130. Tanzania ranking at 93 and 105 for Uganda come indifferent from 2005 rankings.

In its 2005 Corruption Perception Index, Transparency International (TI) ranked Rwanda best performing in the region on how the business community views the economic environment vis-a-avis corruption.

Rwanda was ranked at 83 along with the likes of Lebanon, a country that had become a “place to be for business and tourists” prior to the current conflict.

Only Tanzania followed Rwanda closely at 88. Meanwhile, Uganda ranked long with Afghanistan, Libya and Bolivia came at 117.

Interestingly, Burundi, a country that is just recovering from years of conflict appeared promising to the business community as it then came 130 compared to Kenya at 144. Kenya shares the group with DR Congo, Somalia, Sudan and Tajikistan. Burundi belongs to the same position with the Congo Republic, Venezuela, Cambodia and Georgia.

The 2006 index has Iraq, Myanmar and Haiti at the bottom and New Zealand, Iceland and Finland at the top places that businesses do not have to worry about having to pay what the Kenyans call “kintu kidogo” (something small) to have anything done in their favour.