Many countries have some form of asset declaration requirement for public officials, but there is substantial country-by-country variance as to the actual design of the process. There is especially wide variation with respect to the public accessibility of the disclosed information. In Sierra Leone, under current law, government officers’ asset declarations are kept confidential. Before I was appointed head of Sierra Leone’s Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), I was part of a civil society consortium that called for making all of these declarations public. A few months after my appointment, I was asked if I would support changing the law to make asset declarations public, in line with what I had advocated as a member of civil society. In reflecting on this question, I found that I had changed my mind.
Part of the reason I did not advocate changing the law to make asset declarations public was simply that there was no way our Parliament would pass such an amendment in the short-to-medium term. It did not seem sensible to waste political capital on such a controversial proposal—especially since doing so might provoke a backlash and jeopardize other important reforms. But the reasons for my change of view were not merely pragmatic political calculations. I have also come to believe that, at Sierra Leone’s current stage of development, making asset declarations public could do more harm than good.
Making asset declarations public has advantages and disadvantages. In countries where the declarations are public, interested persons or groups can scrutinize public officers’ assets, income, and liabilities, and this monitoring can detect or deter corruption. But there are also drawbacks to making asset declarations public, several of which are especially salient in Sierra Leone:
- First, making public officials’ assets public could jeopardize their privacy and expose them to all sorts of undesirable pressures, particularly given the abuse of social media and other means of information dissemination. One can imagine officials whose assets are known being targeted by their clans, villages, and family for failing to provided their personal resources for them when they need it—and this increased pressure on officials might actually increase the risk of corruption. (Of course, it’s also possible that public asset disclosures will reveal that a public official is less affluent than their family and village previously thought. But this probably wouldn’t alleviate the pressure on public officers, who are generally expected to take responsibility of their friends, families, clans, neighbors, etc.) The information contained in asset declaration forms will, in most cases, strengthen the often considerable pressure on public officers by calling attention to the resources at their disposal.
- On a related note, public asset declarations could make public officials more likely targets for criminals. Although the crime rate in Sierra Leone is generally low, our society had not evolved to the point that one announce one’s assets to the general public and remain safe. I would be quite nervous if anybody on the street could be watching my bank balance on a smart phone.
- These factors, combined with the fact that the culture in Sierra Leone discourages too much disclosure of individuals’ wealth or other personal affairs, means that public asset disclosure might discourage good citizens from venturing into public service. Indeed, individuals acting in bad faith might try to use asset declarations as a political tool to target public officials or make interested people shy away from politics.
- Additionally, given all of the above factors, making declarations public might increase the frequency of false or misleading declarations. Right now in Sierra Leone, it is more important to ensure that the declarations are accurate, and we should not undermine that goal by giving otherwise honest public officers strong incentives to resort to all kinds of dishonest tactics to avoid the personal consequences that would come with disclosure of their assets to the general public.
The fact that asset declarations are not public does not mean that the asset declaration system is not an effective anticorruption tool. Although the ACA did not push to make the declarations public, we did adopted a set of other reforms designed to ensure robust enforcement of asset declaration processes, with strict penalties on those who fail to file or who file incorrect or incomplete information, and to make the process more efficient. We also combined the information in the asset declarations with other information (including lifestyle audits) to investigate the integrity of public officials and prosecute offenders.
This is not to say that there will never come a point where it makes sense for Sierra Leone to make public officials’ asset declarations public. But each country must determine what works best for it in its particular circumstances. And for Sierra Leone, notwithstanding what I had thought in my activist days, the asset declaration system will work best if the declarations are kept confidential.
GAB | The Global Anticorruption Blog 
I’m sorry, but these are weak reasons for opposing transparency in asset declaration. Yes, kin pressure is considerable, but if one stands for integrity, then it should be clear what one must do. The entire first argument concerning family pressure is nonsensical, as resisting family pressure is intrinsic to anti-corruption work. Second, public asset declaration cannot be denied on the idea that someone may use that information for criminal purposes. Defense from criminality cannot be used as an excuse to hide public expenses from the public. Third, if asset disclosure is new and difficult to enforce, that’s all the more reason to get serious about it and implement transparency policies are they were meant to be.
Dear Francis, I understand your view point has changed on this issue of making Assets Declaration Public with respect to Sierra Leone, but I disagree with your rational and if I did not know you, I will say “you are soft are soft in crime”. The political, social and economic realities of Sierra Leone are similar to many other African countries, and to many other developing countries. Holding public office or working for government must be as transparent as possible, the same people who might claimed to be afraid of having their business known by those they supposed to serve are the same people driving luxury cars and leaving in houses they cannot afford, sending their children to study abroad, the wives, mistresses and cercles spending what they cannot make. Serving the public is a noble endeavor and financial scrutiny and the well-being of the people’s finances must always be prioritized over privacy. If you want privacy, stay in the private sector. I will also argue that, in a transparent society, people must know how much elected and non-elected make or save, unfortunately, if these individuals want to hide their assets, they will do it anyway whether their declarations are publicized or not. I have not yet met or seen a corrupt politician or government thief who does not enjoin stolen proceeds in Africa and I can safely say that 90 % of Government employees or elected officials in Africa lives above their means. Therefore, not publicizing Assets Declarations is a disservice to the fight against corruption and public scrutiny of stolen or hidden assets is one of the best tools to fight corruption. No middle ground.
Absolutely agree with you! The reasons given are very weak, not even for a country with weak anti corruption system. Asset declaration disclosure is a global standard, and even if not subject to proactive disclosure due to social peculiarity of the country, they should be subject to access to information request for civil societies and concerned citizens.
There is a saying, “in the name of transparency, you cannot take out your inner garment.”
Pingback: ACC Commissioner Francis Ben Kaifala Changes Position on Public Asset Declarations
I totally disagree with you on reasons for assest declaration to be made public especially in a developing country like ours. These your reasons are catalyst for the corrupted top public and political leaders to flourish by embazelling the dignity’s and wealth of citizen. Ben, secretary or driver working for public and private institutions do not have the power to stalled million of dollars project because of kick backs but these are done by top elite and senior management officers…..look at your data of the cases you have and reflect on that on how we young people should be thirsty for change to fight corruption at all level so that our children would enjoy Sierra Leone in 50 years to come. Making such excuses will promote corruption that could metastasize to chronic form in our society. Please reverse your position on this and let start public declaration especially on certian level in appointment position.
The Maryland state legislator is grappling with this issue in light of the murder last year of a trial court judge by a disappointed litigant. Proposed legislation would create the Office of Information Privacy (OIP) in the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Judges or the or OIP on behalf of the judge could a request a person or governmental entity to not publish “personal information” about the judge or remove existing information from now in a publication or online. Other details are in this report: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/fnotes/bil_0005/sb0575.pdf
This proposal is an example of a middle ground between full disclosure and no disclosure.
So in that cases the murderer learned info from the declaration?
They did. Hence the reason for the legislation. Follows federal legislation protecting judges after a similar tragedy. https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2022/12/16/congress-passes-daniel-anderl-judicial-security-and-privacy-act
Francis, I’m late to the conversation but found this post highly intriguing (and it’s certainly sparked some passionate replies). You’ve clearly wrestled a great deal with this decision, and I think it’s admirable to publicly explain your specific reasons for the decision – after all, modeling transparency is an important component of your job. Per the comment above, however, there must be a middle ground. Is it not possible to have the asset declarations reported internally to the ACA but not to the public?