It is often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and this is nowhere truer than in the fight against corruption. That insight has helped shape the approach of Sierra Leone’s campaign against corruption over the last several years. In 2018, Sierra Leone’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), of which I am the Commissioner (Head), made a deliberate policy decision to emphasize prevention over enforcement. The ACC created a designated “Prevention Department,” which was empowered to work, in conjunction with other oversight bodies such as the Supreme Audit Institution and the Public Sector Reform Agency, to ensure that corruption prevention systems and processes are embedded in the national administrative and governance architecture.

Of course, talking generally about “prevention” is easier than actually implementing effective corruption prevention mechanisms. So, what are some of the key tools that Sierra Leone has deployed to enhance its corruption prevention system? I will highlight five that have been especially important and effective:

• First, the ACC has developed a Corruption Risk Assessment tool called “systems and process review,” which is used to examine practices and procedures in ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) to identify corruption risks and make remedial recommendations. As part of the review, the ACC consults with the affected MDA, presenting the preliminary findings and giving the MDA leadership an opportunity to provide input and ask questions. After the report is finalized, the MDA has three months to address the issues raised; at the end of this three-month period, a team of monitors visits the MDA again to check whether steps have been taken to implement with the recommendations. The ACC can develop and apply appropriate sanctions for non-compliance (including, in extreme cases, prosecution of the head of the MDA). 
• Second, the ACC’s prevention department develops “service charters” for each MDA—essentially documents that inform citizens of the services that the MDA is supposed to provide, the associated cost (if any) that citizens must pay for these services, and information on where and how to report corruption and other problems. These service charters are strategically placed in locations where they can be easily accessed and read. For example, they may be made easily accessible in government offices where citizens regularly interact with government employees, such as hospitals, local councils, police stations, and offices that issue licenses, permits, or registrations.
• Third, the ACC works with MDAs to set up Integrity Management Committees (IMCs) in every MDA and branch of government, including the Presidency. Members of the IMCs are drawn from among the MDA’s own staff, usually supervisors, auditors, or others with fiduciary roles. IMCs serve as anticorruption advisers and watchdogs within their MDA—and they can also serve as whistleblowers. The ACC’s prevention staff regularly meets, trains, and interfaces with IMCs, and provides resources and support for their work.
• Fourth, the ACC regularly provides MDA officers with expert-led training on how to maintain ethical standards and integrity, and reminds them of their responsibilities to avoid corruption and corrupt practices. 
• Fifth, the ACC conducts direct monitoring—in the form of physical presence and observation—of certain MDAs, particularly those responsible for generating revenue (such as tax and customs authorities). Monitoring and audits are sometimes random, though they can also be triggered by citizen or whistleblower complaints.

The re-focusing of Sierra Leone’s anticorruption efforts on prevention—while maintaining a commitment to other responsibilities, including enforcement—has led to remarkable improvements in the corruption situation in the country. These improvements have been reflected in the country’s scores on various corruption perception indexes, which have improved markedly since 2018. (For example, on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, Sierra Leone improved its global ranking from 130^th in 2017 to 110^th in 2022—still a poor overall showing, but one of the few countries in the world to have demonstrated significant improvement during that timeframe.) And Sierra Leone is not the only country to have achieved notable anticorruption improvement through prevention-focused strategies: Other success stories include Georgia, Malaysia, Hong Kong,  Rwanda, Singapore, and Seychelles. So, while anticorruption authorities in developing countries are sometimes tempted to focus primarily or exclusively on enforcement—making their prevention work secondary—the evidence indicates that this would be a mistake. Of course, each country is different, and anticorruption strategies must take into account the particular circumstances (such as resources, capacity, and culture). Nevertheless, in most countries investment into preventive strategies will pay off, and anti-graft campaigners should urge governments to devote more attention and resources to prevention strategies and tools.