Ismail Zariyand (2021)

Corruption is a poison that infects the development of nations. The world bank (1997) defined corruption as the “use of public office for private gain” (Anwar Shah, 2000), while the Member States of the United Nations have finalized the United Nations Convention against Corruption in 2003 (UNODC, 2003). From article 6 of the convention, it is clear that “corruption can be prosecuted after the fact, but first and foremost it requires prevention” (UN, 2004). The chapter dedicated to the prevention and maintaining the integrity of the public staff states that “once recruited, public servants should be subject to codes of conduct, requirements for financial and other disclosures, and appropriate disciplinary measures (UNODC, 2003).

The public sector in the Maldives has witnessed a surge in corruption, leading to a decline in public trust in public servants, particularly amid the rapid economic development activities. However, it appears that the Constitution, laws, and regulations have established adequate administrative procedures and preventive measures to align with the UN convention on corruption.

The Maldives boasts an anti-corruption commission endowed with independence, responsibility, and authority as outlined in both the Constitution and laws. Article 199 (a) of the Constitution mandates the existence of an Anti-Corruption Commission, with subsection (b) emphasizing its independence and impartiality. The commission is tasked with preventing and combatting corruption across all state activities without fear (Constitution, 2008). Consequently, the commission, with members appointed by parliament, possesses sufficient power to instill public confidence.

Aligned with the UN convention, maintaining the integrity of public staff is pivotal in corruption prevention. Regulatory procedures governing the employment process of public service staff, including codes of conduct, recruitment, promotions, and terminations, adhere to the Labour Act (2/2008). Disciplinary measures for public employees largely follow the standards set by the Constitution for the anti-corruption commission.

Civil servants, serving as administrative staff in government offices and local council secretariats, face stringent regulations regarding illegal conduct. As per the civil service regulation (2014) article 271 (c) number 18, employees found responsible for unlawful behavior by a legally defined state agency face level 3 offenses, resulting in termination. The Anti-Corruption Commission, defined in the Constitution, oversees the enforcement of responsibilities and conducts specified by law. Consequently, the Civil Service Commission duly terminates or penalizes employees implicated in past anti-corruption reports.

Effective disciplinary action against employees flagged by anti-corruption investigators is crucial to prevent the destruction of evidence or the repetition of corrupt actions. Such measures are vital for upholding integrity and trust in public institutions.

The recent decision to retain political appointees in office, pending a court verdict for reported corruption, while expelling civil servants for similar offenses, is viewed as a double standard. Concerns arise that this practice could undermine existing measures aimed at preventing crime by removing corrupt individuals from public positions. Allowing suspected corrupt individuals to remain in public service and access state resources risks eroding public trust in the government’s anti-corruption efforts.

Despite recent changes in the treatment of political appointees, who are now recognized as employees with legally designated employment rights under Constitution articles 115 (f) and 132, the employment procedures for such appointees are not outlined in the labor act. This lack of clarity may further contribute to the perception of inconsistency in handling corruption cases within the government.

Researchers Edgardo Buscaglia and Jan Van Dijk have stated in the OECD-based journal “Forum on Crime and Society” that; “Organized crime and corruption are shaped by the lack of strength of the control mechanism of the State and civil society” (E. Bascaglia, 2003).   

References

Anwar Shah, J. H., 2000. Anti-Corruption Policies and Programs : A Framework for Evaluation. [Online]
Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19753
[Accessed 13 10 2021].

Constitution, 2008. https://mvlaw.gov.mv/. [Online]
Available at: https://mvlaw.gov.mv/pdf/ganoon/QaanoonAsaasee/English-constitution.pdf
[Accessed 16 10 2021].

E. Bascaglia, a. J. V. D., 2003. Controlling Organized Crime and Corruption in the Public Sector. Forum on Crime and Society, 3(1), pp. 1-32.

UN, 2004. https://www.unodc.org/. [Online]
Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/UN_Convention_Against_Corruption.pdf
[Accessed 14 10 2021].

UNODC, 2003. United Nations Guide on Anti-Corruption Policies. s.l., http://www.unodc.org/corruption.html.