An independent institution established for the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of corruption, corrupt practices and to provide for other related matters. 

Contact us on: +23278832131 or info@anticorruption.gov.sl
Address:  Integrity House, Tower Hill, Freetown Sierra Leone, West Africa.

Share on Social Networks

Share Link

Use permanent link to share in social media

Share with a friend

Please login to send this document by email!

Embed in your website

Select page to start with


10. 10 | P a g e 2. 3 Monitoring & Compliance Unit The Monitoring and Compliance Unit oversees the implementation of M&C strategies and policies approved by the Director of Corruptio n Prevention. It is also responsible for the development of processes that identify, measure, monitor and report suspicious cases of any M&C breaches, sets appropriate internal monitoring & complia nce policies, and evaluates the effectiveness of the monito ring & compliance system. The overall objective of this unit is to assess compliance of MDAs in the implementation of systems review recommendations, through the measurement of compliance levels. Being an enforcement wing within the Prevention Department, the M&C unit also enforce s the compliance of other statutory instruments like the N ational Public Procurement Authority Act, the Finance Act and other operational policies and regulations during the course of its duties. The Unit is empowered by section (8) of Anti - Corruption Act 2008 to cover compliance issues of MDA activities and retains unrestricted access at any time to all information, records, personnel, property and operat ions of MDAs in Sierra Leone. It is at the end of this process that the constitutional provisions in Anti - Corruption Act 2008 can be enforced and the next section of this handbook will look at ways and means through which this can be done, taking into account the reality that the intention is not just to sanction non - compliant MDAs or MDA officials, but to put in place a system whereby compliance with the review The Compliance Monitoring Process

4. 4 | P a g e LIST OF ACR ONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACC Anti - Corruption Commission CASDT Compliance Assessment Score and Decision - Making Tool CM Chief Minister CRP Compliance Results Plan DCRT Data Capture and Reporting Tool GoSL Government of Sierra Leone HRMO Human Resource Management Office IMC Integrity Management Committee MDA Ministries, Departments and Agencies MoF Ministry of Finance MoU Memorandum of Understanding M&C Monitoring and Compliance M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NACS National An ti - Corruption Strategy NASSIT National Social Security and Insurance Trust NPPA National Public Procurement Authority NRA National Revenue Authority OSIWA Open Society Initiative for West Africa PAT Progress Assessment Tool PSC Public Service C ommission SPR Systems and Processes Review SPPR Systems and Processes Review Recommendations

5. 5 | P a g e 1.0 BACKGROUND Corruption remains an insurmountable obstacle for successive governments in Sierra Leone and has remained widespread and systemic for decade s, with petty corruption in the form of bribery being prevalent in law enforcement, procurement, and the provision of public services. Various efforts have been made over the years by the Anti - Corruption Commission (ACC) to develop institutional mechanisms to address these problems in line with its mandate to conduct systems review of Ministries Department and Agencies (MDAs) and monitor their compliance to recommendations agreed upon during systems review exercises. However, a lack of a dministrative and po litical wi ll in MDAs, coupled with lack of Compliance Management and Sanctions Enforcement Procedures are major obstacles in ensuring MDAs implement recommendations from these exercises. Against the backdrop of changing strategies in the fight against corr uption in Sierra Leone, the ACC has identified the failure or absence of compliance enforcement mechanisms to ensure that systems, procedures, and grievance redress function effectively and are adhered to within MDAs. In 2011 Ernst and Young were contract ed by the ACC to do a diagnostic and analytical study on systems and procedures in key MDAs, which culminated in the development of a Monitoring and Compliance Manual aiming to ‘detail the roles and responsibilities of officers of the ACC in performance of monitoring and compliance of MDAs. To date the operationalisation of this manual has met with limited successes and challenges. It is to this end that the ACC has engaged with and received funding from the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) towards the development of a Compliance Sanctions Management Procedures Handbook, which shall provide specific and detailed guidelines for the implementation or operationalization of the compliance sanction provisions in the Anti - Corruption Act 2008, as co ntained in Sections 7 & 8 of said Act thus: (Section 7,2.): Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall be the function of the Commission: f. To examine the practices and procedures of public bodies in order to facilitate the discovery of corrupt practices or acts of corruption and to secure revision of those practices and procedures which in the opinion of the Commission, may lead to or be conducive to corruption or corrupt practices. g. To advise and assist any person, authority, pub lic body or private sector institution on changes in practices or procedures compatible with the effective discharge of the duties of such persons, authorities, public bodies or private sector institutions that the Commission thinks necessary to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of corrupt practices; h. To issue instructions to public bodies of changes in practices or procedures which are necessary to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of corrupt practices (Section 8): 1. A public body shall, not l ater than three months of receipt of instructions from the Commission pursuant to paragraph (h) of subsection (2) of section 7 effect the necessary changes in practices and procedures.

9. 9 | P a g e 2.2 Systems and Policy Review Units Systems and Processes Reviews is a corruption prevention exercise th at is carried out to examine practices and procedures of public bodies in order to facilitate the discovery of corrupt practices or acts of corruption, and to secure the revision of those practices and procedures which, in the opinion of the Commission, ma y lead to or be conducive to corruption or corrupt practices. Recommendations proffered from systems reviews are meant to correct actions or lapses whether administrative, functional or structural which may pose debilitating effects on the overall output of the MDAs. Similarly, the Policy and Ethics Unit carries out policy reviews to inject transparency and accountability features therein in MDAs and formulate policies where they do not exist. Ethical trainings and the formulation of codes of conduct al l form part of its functions. The reviews can be reactive and proactive interventions – stemm ing from Strategic or Annual Plans or from processed referred complaints from ACC report centre s or media houses. Review exercises could also be thematic (deali ng with specific issues like vehicle use & maintenance or policy formulation and implementation) or comprehensive (being general reviews of all the activities or processes within in an MDA ) . The exercises, be they systems and processes or policy reviews se ek to: i. Provide oversight on the effective utilization of allocated public resources. ii. Instil integrity in public life thereby allowing transparency and accountability in the operational processes and procedures of MDAs . iii. Provide recommendations that will p revent or minimize corruption and improve on service delivery in MDAs. THE PROCESES OF SYSTEMS AND POLICY REVIEWS IN MDAs (Thematic or Comprehensive) Monitoring for Compliance

8. 8 | P a g e 2.0 KEY FUNCTIONS OF THE PREVENTION DEPARTMENT 2.1 Department of Corruption Prevention As set out in the ACC’s strategic plan (2018 - 2021), and Section (7)(2) of the Anti - Corruption Act 2008, the d epartment is charged with the responsibility to conduct policy formulation and reviews; comprehe nsive systems and processes reviews in MDAs with a view of identifying corruption vulnerabilities, develop Best Practices Guides and recommendations and monitor same MDAs for compliance. This is the department that is responsible for ensuring the existenc e of an effective monitoring and compliance structure for conducting the Commission’s activities, including setting up adequate systems for monitoring, measuring, and reporting compliance levels of MDAs. The key elements in achieving these goals are: i. App roving strategies and policies, and periodically reviewing implementation; ii. Ensuring the enforcement of all the requirements and consequences for compliance and non - compliance as provided for by the Anti - Corruption Act 2008. iii. Ensuring that staff are monitor ing the effectiveness of the compliance system; and iv. Establishing and documenting all operational policies and procedures. This department is headed by the Director of Corruption Prevention and assisted by a Deputy Director. The department has three special ized units that maintain a strong reinforcing operational synergy to yield a desired result of preventing corruption. See below for illustration.

6. 6 | P a g e 2. Where a public body considers that the changes in practices and pro cedures as contained in the instructions would be impracticable or otherwise disadvantageous to the effective discharge of its duties, the public body shall make representations to the Commissioner in writing, within seven days of receipt of the instructio ns. 3. Upon considering the representation of the public body concerned, the Commission may confirm, vary or cancel the instructions, as it may think appropriate and the Commission’s decision shall be final. 4. The head of a public body which fails to comp ly with instructions of the Commission or variation thereof commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not less than five million Leones. 5. In addition to the penalty prescribed in subsection (4), the head of the public body shall be subject to disciplinary measures including dismissal or removal from office by the appropriate authority notwithstanding the provisions of his letter of appointment or any enactment to the contrary. 6. The Commission shall inform the appropriate appointin g authority of the failure of a public authority to comply with instructions issued pursuant to paragraph (h) of subsection (2) of section 7. 1.1 RATIONALE Prevention it is said is better than cure. Fighting graft through prevention it is also said is less costly as compared to investigating and prosecuting offenders. Over the years, the emphasis has been on enforcement as enshrined in the National Anti - Corruption Strategy (NACS) 2015 - 2018. In the current NACS ( 2019 - 2021 ) the emphasis has shifted a bit to a more cooperative approach in the fight against graft. The ACC now wants to ensure that systems review recommendations as proffered by the ACC are acted upon by MDAs. It is hoped that by putting emphasis on this aspect it will help s tate institutions and p rivate sector entities to take steps themselves to curb graft. In light of this and previous engagements by the ACC, the general feeling is that these provisions are not being adhered to and the need exists for there to be movement towards greater complia nce and the application of the prescribed sanctions across the board without favour. The Commission has been finding it difficult to record 100% compliance from MDAs in implementing its Systems Review Recommendations. Figures from the round of assessments done by the Monitoring and Compliance Unit of four MDAs in the first quarter of 2020, for example, indicate the following:  That of the four MDAs monitored ( Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Ministry of Works, Sierra Leone Correctional Services, a nd the Sierr a Leone Road Safety Authority ) none attained full compliance – the highest score was 54% which was attained by SLRA and inter preted as ‘limited progress’.  A total of 95 recommendations were monitored and 45(46.7%) of those recommendations were f ully implemented. Whilst some actions have been taken on 35(36.8%) of the recommendations, while 15(16.5%) have not been implemented. This assessment was conducted based on the ACC’s Progress Assessment Tool (PAT) designed to measure compliance using a sca le of 0% - 100% . The table below indicates the scoring pattern of the four MDAs monitored in the 1 st quarter of 2020.

17. 17 | P a g e ii. MDA s with a compliance score th at is within the range (50 % to 95 %) shall be considered ‘ Partly Compliant ’ ; W arning letters shall be sent to Heads of MDAs under the hand of the Commissioner of the AC C. In addition to bullet ( ii ) above, MDAs that may fall in this compliance bracket for the second time shall be engaged to review compliance risks for possible improvement. iii. MDA s with compliance score that is ( 96 % to 100 %) shall be considered full y compliant ; t he ACC shall send a congratulatory/commendation letter to the head of MDA or consider the compliant MDA for awards in its annual integrity awards program. iv. As stated earlier, SPR Rs sh ould be part of p erformance contracts signed on to by Minis ters of Government and for which failure to comply could lead to dismissal without trials . 3.4 C alculating Compliance Scores of MDAs Formula: Compliance Score (CS ) = Total Number of Full Compliance Recomm endations /Total N umber of the Recommendations X High est Possible Compliance Score Example: Let X= Total Number of Full y Compliant Recommendations = 28 Y= Total Number of Recommendations = 32 Z= Highest Possible Compliance Score = 100 Therefore: CS = (X/Y) x Z CS = ( 28 / 32 ) x 100 = 88 % ( Significant Compliance ) (Warnings) 3.5 Impact Evaluation of Systems and Processes Review Recommendations Systems and processes review is a programmatic intervention in MDAs primarily to prevent corruption or minimize the occurrence of corrupti on and corrupt practices , and with the monitoring of SPRRs focusing on output s (immediate results) , the Prevention D epartment has not been able to carry out an evaluation of systems and processes review impact on corruption reduction (long term results) . An impact assessment that will tell us the situation of corruption in the next 24 months after a s ystems and processes review has been conducted needs to be done on every reviewed MDA . This process will reveal changes either positive or negative in corruption trends whether perceived or actual. The evaluation can either be outsourced to a research/evaluation firm or carried out by the M&C Unit. The undermentioned players in the table below are very crucial in this process. No. Stakeholders Roles/ expectat ions Stages of evaluation 1 MDAs To provide information on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability Planning; Data collection and validation and presentation 2 CSOs To carry out the evaluation Planning, data collection and presentat ion of report 3 Households (service users) To provide information on corruption experiences encounter ed in accessing information or reliable service delivery Data collection 4 M&C Unit Prepare TOR, supervise data collection Planning, data collection and presentation of report

18. 18 | P a g e i. Feedback Mechanisms MDAs should always be given the opportunity to make input into the draft monitoring report through a feedback mechanism . Draft ACC monitoring report s shall be sent to the head of MDA to make comments by agre eing or disagreeing with the findings and score accorded based on the evidence available on the implementation of SPRRs . In a situation where there are disagreements, an amicable balance will be sought that will reflect in the final report. During the cour se of the implementation if any c hanges in the mandate or management structure of MDAs that render certain recommendations impracticable or disadvantageous to the effective discharge of its duties, the head of MDA shall make representations to the Commissio ner in writing, within seven day s of receipt of the draft report . Upon considering the r epresentation of the MDA concerned the Commission may confirm, vary or cancel the recommendation(s) as deemed appropriate and the its decision shall be final, as enshri ned in S ection(8)(2)(3) of the Anti - Corruption Act 2008. ii. Training and Workshop s on Compliance Management Processes T o ensure that the compliance program is properly implemented, relevant employees should receive training on the on the compliance managemen t process and sanction enforcement procedures discussed in this handbook at regular intervals of no more than a year. For all employees it would be advisable to make sure that this training exercise their induction exercise. Also training that is relevant t o improve compliance shall from time to time be provided by the ACC, for example,on records management, financial management, stores management, procurement and so on. iii. Decision Making and the Enforcement of Sanction Procedures The enforcement of sanctions shall be guided by the MDAs Compliance Barometer and its application procedures discussed in 3. 3.d above . 4.0 COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT TOOLS 4. 1 The Compliance Results Plan Matrix (CRP M ) MDAs ’ Compliance Results Plan Matrix forms the basis of compliance mo nitoring in MDAs. It contains all the recommendations agreed upon by the S&PR unit and the MDAs, and also includes timelines/deadlines and activity owners, progress indicator, targets, compliance risk/assumptions and means of compliance verification. The d evelopment of this tool should be a collaborative and participatory process that includes the MDAs, SPR/Policy and Ethics Unit and M&C Unit. This can be developed ideally immediately after the validation of the systems review report. This will ensure that CRP is part of final review report that is presented to the MDAs for implementation. It is crucial to note that MDAs’ participation in setting the recommendations, targets, compliance risks and timelines etc. account for ownership of the process as well a s being an acknowledgement of their responsibilities. As long as the process is skillfully facilitated, participatory techniques can be used to define measurable progress indicators , and the extent to which progress shall be realized in a particular period of time. Albeit the Commission is interested in 100% compliance some target of progress has to be set firmly by the M&C Unit whil e the others that have cost implicat ions and are capacity related are negotiated by the implementing MDA.


11. 11 | P a g e recommendations (agreed upon by the MDAs in partnership with the ACC) increases to a level that the ACC will be satisfied that enough strides are being taken within the MDAs towards pr ogress on the compliance front. 3.0 INCREASING COMPLIANCE LEVELS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF SANCTIONS For years on end the ACC has been grappling with the challenge of enforcing full compliance to the implementation of its systems review recomm end ations despite the provisions enshrined in Section 8 of the Anti - Corruption Act 2008. This chapter will provide a practical step by step guide to develop a compliance management system that will enhance full compliance and also create a due diligence app roach for the establishment of a threshold for the enforcement of the aforementioned constitutional provisions for non - compliance . 3.1 The Compliance Management System – Conditions and Requirements i. Availabili ty of the Legal Provisions There are clear provi sions in the Section 8 of the Anti - Corruption Act 2008 which compel MDAs to implement ACC recommendations not later than three (3) months after a systems and processes or policy review has been conducted in that MDA. There are also punitive actions to be in voked for failure to comply with the instructions of the Commission. With the application of this handbook the said provisions can now be implemented having exhausted all compliance enhancement procedures as discussed below. ii. Commitment o f Compliance Deliv ery Champions - MDAs The management team of MDAs that comprise of the p olitical head, Permanent Secretary and Directors are responsible for the implementation and coordination of activities generated within and outside the MDAs. The implementation of syste ms and processes review recommendations (SPRRs) should be championed by the management team of MDAs by fully mainstreaming ACC’s recommendations into their day to day operations. In order to ensure full compliance, it is believed that the following must be done:  The full participation of members of the management team is required in the development of Compliance Result Plan Matrix. This is to ensure ownership of decision s to set practical timelines and ensure the necessary resource allocation to implement SPRRs .  Strengthen I ntegrity Management Committees (IMC) to co ordinate the implementation of SRRs and report to the ACC on a quarterly basis .  Incorporate ACC recommendations into their quarterly or annual budget and work plans.  Ensure that implementation t imelines of S P RRs are met by setting internal monitoring mechanisms.  Lead the process to work with other institutions that have a stake in the implementation of the related SPRRs , for example the Ministry of Finance ( M o F ) , Human Resource M anagement Office (HRMO) N ational Revenue Authority (N RA ) , N ational Social Security and Insurance Trust (N ASSIT ) or the P ublic Service Commission (P SC ).  Political heads are to escalate recommendations that may require Cabinet support / approval.  Proper handing over of all do cuments related to the implementation of SPRRs to the successor of post in case of a transfer .

12. 12 | P a g e iii. Commitment of Compliance Delivery Champions – ACC In line with the statutory provisions enshrined in the Anti - Corruption Act 2008, it is also recommended that Commissioner does the following:  Issues w ritten instructions to the reviewed MDA for t he full implementation of SPRRs .  Send out w arning letters that have not met full compliance (see assessment grid 4.3 below - Compliance Assessment Score and Decision Ma king Tool ) .  Issue indictments to heads of MDAs who fall below the com pliance threshold (see assessment grid 4.3 below - Compliance Assessment Score and Decision Making Tool). iv. Compliance Risk Identification This process is very crucial in the compliance ma nagement system. The identification of compliance risk requires a robust participatory approach in arriving at risks or threats that affect the full and timely implementation of systems review recommendations. The process of identifying r isks should includ e MDAs, Systems and Processes Review/Policy and Ethics Units and the M&C Unit. This can be done during the development of the Compliance Result Plan Matrix, ideally immediately after the validation of systems review report s . The most common existential ris ks in MDAs that were are usually not considered during the development of a Compliance Result Plan Matrix implementation plan matrix are categorized into the table below . No. Category Risks 1 Financial  Late disbursement of funds  Incomplete funding of approved budgets  Very important eme rging issues leading to veering of funds 2 Staff capability  Inadequate complement of staff because of vacant positions  Unqualified staff  Limited capability of staff to carry out certain functions like policy form ulation 3 Structural issues  Some MDAs lack certain professional structures in their organogram s like M&E Unit s and Policy & Planning Units 4 Staff Rotation  Lack of proper handing over procedur es or policies 5 Political Change  Restructuring of MDAs - movement of department sbetween ministries sometimes result in the non - implementation of SPRRs All of the risks above have the potential to affect MDAs timely compliance if not identified and appropriate mitigation measures designed to address them . Disc ussing these risks at strategic levels with the Mo F, PSC, the Chief Min i ster, and the NACS National Steering Committee would help to ameliorate the effects. It is therefore prudent to consider these risks when establishing targets and timelines in the deve lopment of the Compliance Result Plan Matrix.

14. 14 | P a g e 3.2 Partnership s for Compliance i. MDAs to share Internal Audit reports with ACC I nternal auditing in most cases focus es on the monitoring of compliance to control measures (either external or internal) , which is similar to what the ACC M&C Unit does in relation to systems review recommendations. The internal audit reports contain risk areas that may directly affect the implementation of SPRRs. Sharing such report s with the ACC will not only he lp in the risk profiling of MDAs for appropriate action in the compliance management process but also compel MDAs to comply with m anagement c ontrols. To effectively forge this relationship, the ACC will lead the following steps:  A Memorandum of Understand ing (MOU) will be signed with the Internal Audit Department in the Ministry of Finance. This is done to give legitimacy on sharing the reports with ACC by the attached internal auditors to MDAs.  An MOU w ith a clause on the sharing of internal a udit report s should be signed with the reviewed MDA during the presentation of Systems and Processes Review Report s . ii. Forging Strategic Alliance with NACS National Steering Committee and Chief Minister The NACS Steering Committee that sits in the Office of the Vice President performs a supervisory role over MDAs in the fight against corruption. Instructions from the National Steering Committee to the MDAs on compliance commitment s on the implementation of ACC’s SPRRs may create a positive impact. Similarly, integr ating the ACC’s SPRRs in the performance c ontracts as managed by the Office of the Chief Minister and signed with MDAs will also have a positive impact. This can be achieved through the following:  Invitation of NACS Steering Committee to the presentation of every final systems and processes review report for a commitment statement .  ACC submits a finalized M&C report to the NACS Steering Committee and drawing attention to areas of low compliance in each MDA.  ACC submits a finalized systems and processes rep ort to Chief Minister (CM) and engage the CM on how to integrate the SPRRs into the MDAs performance management contracts. iii. Sharing of Compliance Risk with Appr opriate Stakeholders for Action The most common risks identified in 3. 1.iv above contribute imme nsely to limiting compliance and implement ing SPRRs. Risks associated with the operational mandate of each stakeholder must be communicated to the same for action if financial, HR/ staff , structural, and political change obstacles are to be surmounted. 3.3 Compliance Result Monitoring Systems The following tools/steps are recommended to usher in an increase in compliance levels: a) Corruption Risk Assessment The review of systems and processes should focus on high corruption risk areas – with the r isk identifi cation stage identify ing potential corruption threats and vulnerabilities in MDAs, the chains of events that may lead to an act of corruption, and potential problems before they turn into actual acts of corruption. Id entification of corruption risk is carr ied out in two levels:

16. 16 | P a g e  Changes in operational mandates or key objectives of the MDA  Vulnerabilities that may come from an expansion of operational areas  Behavior of certain staff that constitute corruption or low ethical values. This process can be informed by a service beneficiary impact evaluation in the second year of the previous review. This means an impact evaluation of MDAs should be done after 24 months from the date of the previous review. This is to ide ntify changes as a result of the review. d) Compliance Threshold Barometer The Compliance Barometer Threshold is one of the Compliance Management Tools (CMTs) designed to measure compliance of MDAs. Other CMTs are extensively discussed in the next cha pter (4.0). As we aware, several reasons could be adduced by MDAs for their non - compliance with SPR Rs , namely lack of funds, untimely allocation of funds, lack of expert staff, transfer of competent staff and lack of automation etc. Over and above th e aforementioned legitimate constraints which may i mpair the implementation of SPRRs , the ACC do es however sometimes find situati ons wherein the SPRRs were simply not adhered to due to non - commitment to the fight against graft. The undermentioned steps ar e proffered by this manual in a bid to address these situations in MDAs. Although the Anti - Corruption Act 2008 clearly states that MDAs shall implement all SPRRs not later than three (3) months to effect necessary changes that will prevent the occurrence o f corruption and corrupt practices , the aim of the corruption prevention effort is to build coalitions, harness shared values and influence change of attitude in the fight against graft. i. MDA s witha compliance score that is within the range (0 to 49%) sha ll be considered ‘Non - Compliant ’ ; this shall warrant the decision by the Commissioner to issue indictment for prosecution in the Courts of law. Upon conviction under Section 8(4)(5) Anti - Corruption Act 2008, the he ad of a public body shall be liable to a fin e of not less than five million Leones. Also, the head of the public body convicted under the same sections above shall be subject to disciplinary measures including dismissal or removal from office by the appropriate authority notwithstanding the provisio ns of his letter of appointment or any enactment to the contrary. 1 st Review Impact Evaluation 2 nd Review Monitoring for Compliance Enforcement of Sanctions 0 Month 24 Months 36 Months Emergence of new risks/vulnerabilities % Compliance 49% 95% 100% 0 % De cisions Indictment Warnings Congratulatory letter or award

21. 21 | P a g e To ol 3 : Compliance Assessment Score and Decision Making Tool (CA SD T) 4 .4 Compl iance Monitoring Plan A monitoring plan is critical to establishing the activities required to be undertaken to conduct the compliance assessment. This will involve tracking progress made by the MDA’ s toward s achieving the expected results and reporting status. The M&C planning template provides a summary level document to contain the results of planning effort. This is an annual plan but should be a living document that is updated regularly during the course of the year . The MDAs should make an input into development of this plan by clearly providing the following information:  Clear timeline for quarterly self - monitoring activity  Clear sub mission date of quarterly self - monitoring report s to the ACC  Resp onsible person for the submission of the quarterly self - monitoring report The final product will be presented to MDAs for approval and copies be shared with same. Tool 4 : Compliance Monitoring plan No. Activity Deliverable Start time Finish time Fr equency Responsible person Budget Comment s 4 .5 Compliance Reporting Templates a. Single MDA Compliance Reporting Template This template summarizes the contents of Tool 2 (data capture and reporting template). It can be use d to report on one MDA. Compliance result s on each area of focus can be summarized to give an overall average score for decision like warnings or application of sanctions as enshrined in the Anti - Corruption Act 2008depending on the level of score. This too lcan be exclusively used by the ACC monitoring unit. Description of Compliance levels Moderate Compliance Significant Compliance Full Compliance Score Range (0% - 49%) (50% - 95%) (96% to 100%) Status Code Decision Indictment W arning awards / congratulation letter

15. 15 | P a g e  General risk identification – General risk s characteristic to every MDA should be identified. Information here is collected usually through interviews, focus groups and surveys, review of all corruption related complaints , investiga tions and conviction trends in the MDA and detailed process review.  Specific risk identification – Specific risk s characteristic to the sector ( for example health, education, security ) should involve the identification of MDA’s responsibilities, with info rmation collected from interviews with stakeholders (patient s, parents, teachers etc. ), as well as a review of the organization ’s internal documents. Special attention should be paid to:  The actual/confirmed vulnerabilities related to the nature of the MD As activities, the competencies or responsibilities of the personnel  The potential vulnerabilities which should be addressed in the future.  Rate the risks according to their significance (Risk Level = Risk Likelihood X Risk Impact)  Identify ing risk best r esponses – recommended actions to control risk  Develop risk management m easures (Compliance Result Monitoring Plan) b) Improving the Quality of Recommendations - Key Chara cteristics  All Systems Review Recommendations should be SMART:  S pecific – should should address specific corruption risks associated to each operational department in an MDA  M easurable – should be able to measureinterms of quantity (number, percentage, weight etc. ) or quality.  Achievable – should be p racticable and consistent with the operat ional mandate and activities of the MDAs. Budgetary implications should also be considered .  R elevant – should be directly relevant to address identified risks in MDAs and improve performance and service delivery  T ime - bound – each recommendation should have an accomplishment date which can be monitored against for compliance.  The recommendations should all be clear on funding sources/provisions to prevent confusion and wasted efforts by the ACC.  Strict implementation timelines should also be instituted an d complied with . Although the A nti - Corruption Act 2008 provides for the ACC’s recommendations to be implemented not later than three (3) months from the date of notification by the ACC of the written instructions , for those recommendations that ha ve fundin g implications a reasonable timeline will be negotiated during the development of Compliance Result Plan Matrix. c) Frequency of Reviews/Risk Assessment Comprehensive review of MDAs should be carried out after every three (3) years. This is to address corru ption opportunities that may arise as a result of the following:

23. 23 | P a g e Compliance Status the number of MDAs being reported on.  Briefly discuss es activities undertaken by MDAs to attain striking compliance levels 3 Challenges / Lessons Learnt  D escribe a ny major impediments to the implementation and what was done or will be done to re solve these issues.  Discusses less ons learned during the period under review.  Explain s any significant modifications or changes that may have occurred during the implantation period due to financial, staffing or political constraints and developments which may have affected performance in meeting full compliance 4 Recommendations for Actions Base d on the findings suggests impactful actions guided by the compliance assessmen t score and decision making tool. REFERENCES 1. Ernst Young, 2011 , Monitoring & Compliance Manual for ACC 2. ACC Report, 2018 , Gauging Compliance with Anti - Corruption Initiatives in 8 MDAs 3. ACC Report, 2019 , Monitoring for Compliance in MDAs 4. ACC Report, 2020 , Gauging Compliance with Anti - Cor ruption Initiative in four (4) MDAs 5. ACC’s Systems and Processes Review Reports : Sierra Leone Prisons (2010); Ministry of Works and Infrastructure (2011); Ministry of Marine Resources (2012); Sierra Leone Road Safety Autho rity (2013) 6. International Anti - Corruption Academy, 2019 , Overview of Anti - Corruption Standards and Guidelines

20. 20 | P a g e Veri fication  What are the sources of information about implementation progress? Compliance Risk/Assumption  What are the limiting factors that are external or internal to the implementation of recommendations? Responsible Actor  Entity or individual responsible for implementation or producing expected results Completed by  Date by which expected result should be achieved. 4 .2 Data Captur e and Reporting Template (DCRT) The d ata capture an d reporting tool below can be used by both MDAs and ACC monitoring team s . This tool is an excerpt from the Compliance Result Plan Matrix (CRP M ) with columns that gauge compliance in the implementation of each recommendation , and the template has a provisio n to capture comments or reasons for the levels of compliance ranging from ‘No Compliance’ to ‘Full Compliance ’ . The MDAs will use this tool to carry out self - monitoring (data collection) on the implementation of systems review recommendations on a quart erly basis and report to the ACC. Similarly, the ACC will use this same DCRT on a quarterly basis to verify the reports submitted by the MDAs. This tool can also be used to report on one MDA with reasons for the level of compliance achieved. The DCRT can be developed by the Monitoring and Compliance Unit and a training session can be conducted for MDAs’ M&Es or focal p erson s for adequate knowledge on the use of this tool. Tool 2 : Data Capture Template for Systems Review Recommendations 4 .3 Compliance Assessment Sco re and Decision Making Tool (CASD T) This tool is design ed to determine the levels of compliance on the implementa tion of each recommendation. It is a compliance scoring table that works d irectly with the data capture and reporting template above (T ool2). It is calibrated into compliance levels like ‘No Compliance’ , ‘Moderate Compliance’ , ‘Significant Compliance’ and ‘Full Compliance’ with a range of score bracket s , in percentage sthat corre sponds with each of the aforementioned compliance level s . Significantly, this tool can be used to determine the threshold that will trigger the enforcement of the com pliance sanctions enshrined in Section 8 (4) & (5) of the Anti - Corruption Act 2008. Area of Focus P OOR RECORDS MANAGEMENT IN DISTRICT COUNCILS Anti - Corruption Objective To improve on Records Management N o Recommendation s Progress /Activity Indicator Impor tance Baseline Problems Target Means of Verification Current Measure (% ) Reaso ns for Current Measure 0 1

19. 19 | P a g e During this process, compliance risks are identified and should an MDA realize that a particular recommendation is impracticable or unachievable the process allows them to make representations to the ACC Commissioner in writing and there will be an engagement as to how to rea ch an agreement acceptable to all. Tool 1 : Compliance Result Plan Matrix Area of Focus Problem Anti - Corruption Objective No. Recommended interventions Indicators Importance (H,M,L) Baseline Target Means of Verification Compliance Risk/Ass umption Responsible Actor Completed by Description of Compliance Result Plan Matrix Area of Focus  Thematic area of interv ention e.g . Financial Management , Procurement Management etc. Problem  Problem to be addressed under the thematic area to reduce or eliminate corruption Anti - Corruption Objective  The objectives that have to be achieved to meet the Commission’s overall objective of reducing or eliminating corruption/corrupt practices. No.  To be used as reference number of the recommendation Recommended Intervention  What are the key interventions to be carried out? Indicators  What are the indicators to measure whether and to what extent the interventions achieves the envisaged results and effects?  They need to be SM ART Importance  HIGH: Area is critical to the effective reduction/prevention of corruption in an MDA.  MEDIUM: Area is necessary for the reduction/prevention of corruption in the MDA  LOW: Area is important but not critical to reduction/prevention of corru ption of an MDA’s operations. Baseline  Used as a point of comparison when measuring progress toward a specific result. Target  Compliance values to be achieved at a specified point in time, against which actual results will be measured Means of  How will results be measured (the basis for compliance Scoring)

22. 22 | P a g e Tool 5: Single MDA Compliance Reporting Template b. Multiple MDAs Compliance Reporting Template (Summary) This template unlike Tool 5 can be used to compute average compliance score for multiple MDAs which can lead to various decisions as highlighted in To ol 3 above (CASDT) . Tool 6: Multiple MDAs Compliance Reporting Template (Summary) MDAs Reviewed Year of Review Number of Recommend ed Actions Number of Recommendatio ns fully implemented Compliance Score (%) Status Code Decision Ministry of Fisheries and Mari ne Resources 2012 28 32 88% Warning Ministry of Works 2011 18 8 44 % Indictment for prosecution Sierra Leone Correctional Services 2010 23 22 96 % Awards/ Congratulation letter Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority 2013 28 28 100% Awards/ Congratulatio n c. Compliance Reporting Format No Layer Comment 1 Executive Summary Summarises the activities undertaken during the reporting period, highlighting compliance scores and changes from expected results and decisions that may be ensued as a result. 2 C urrent MDAs  Pr esents compliance table in tool 5 or tool 6 depending on No Area of Focus Average Current Measure (% ) Status Code Decision 01 Financial Management 02 Procurement Management 03 Fleet Management Average Score for Decision

3. 3 | P a g e Table of Contents COMMISSIONER’S FOREW ORD ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 2 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 1.0 BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 1.1 RATIONALE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 2.0 KEY FUNCTIONS OF THE PREVENTION DEPARTMEN T ................................ ................................ .......... 8 2.1 D EPARTMENT OF C ORRUPTION P REVENTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 2.2 S YSTEMS AND P OLICY R EVIEW U NITS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9 2.3 M ONITORING & C OMPLIANCE U NIT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 10 3.0 INCREASING COMPLIANC E LEVELS AND THE ENF ORCEMENT OF SANCTION S ................................ .... 11 3.1 T HE C OMPLIANCE M ANAGEMENT S YSTEM – C ONDITIONS AND R EQUIREMENTS ................................ ................... 11 3.2 P ARTNERSHIPS FOR C OMPLIANCE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 14 3.3 C OMPLIANC E R ESULT M ONITORING S YSTEMS ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 3.4 C ALCULATING C OMPLIANCE S CORES OF MDA S ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 3.5 I MPACT E VALUATION OF S YSTEMS AND P ROCESSES R EVIEW R ECOMMEN DATIONS ................................ ................ 17 4.0 COMPLIANCE MANAGEMEN T TOOLS ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 4.1 T HE C OMPLIANCE R ESULTS P LAN M ATRIX (CRPM) ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 4.2 D ATA C APTURE AND R EPORTING T EMPLATE (DCRT) ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 4.3 C OMPLIANCE A SSESSMENT S CORE AND D ECISION M AKING T OOL (CASDT) ................................ ........................ 20 4.4 C OMPLIANCE M ONITORING P LAN ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21 4.5 C OMPLIANCE R EPORTING T EMPLATES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 21 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 23

7. 7 | P a g e MDAs Reviewed Year of Review Number of Recommen ded Actions No progress Rate Limited Progress Rate High Progress Rate Target Achieved or Exceeded No % No % No % No % Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources 2012 26 7 27% 5 19% 2 8% 12 46% Ministry of Works 2011 18 5 28% 2 11% 4 22% 7 39% Sierra Leone Correctional Services 2010 23 0 0% 2 9% 10 43% 11 48% Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority 2013 28 3 11% 4 14% 6 21% 15 54% Average Score 95 15 16.5% 13 13.3% 22 23.5% 45 46.7% KEY: Using the progress assessment tool, the overall score of 46.7% for the four MDAs falls within the ‘limited progress’ bracket. Although some MDAs are making efforts to implement these recommendations with outstanding scores, a few still had a lot of catching up to do. There is general agreement among the stakeholders consulted that the absence of enforcement of the provisions enshrined in the Anti - Corruption Act 2008 has contributed to the disappointingly limited level of compliance among MDAs with the ACC’s prescribed recommendations. The under - mentioned issues have been viewed as key impediments:  Funding constraints as all of these MDAs are funded mainly from Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) coffers;  Previous failure on the part of successiv e governments to sanction those responsible  Lack of MDAs management commitment and willingness to implement recommendations that will ensure greater transparency, accountability, and enhanced service delivery;  Absence of the or technical capacity and capa bilities required to implement some of the recommendations  That the ACC lacks clear guidelines to manage compliance or acceptable threshold s to invoke sanctions on MDAs for non - compliance as enshrined in Section (8)(4)(5) of the Anti - Corruption Act 2008 as amended in 2019. It is against this backdrop that this handbook will suggest measures or processes through which compliance can be achieved and decisions that will lead to sanctions be applied for non - compliance. Description of Progress No Progress Limited Progress High progress Target Achieved/Exceeded Score Range (0 %) (1% - 60%) (61% - 99%) (100% or more) Colour Co de

13. 13 | P a g e STEPS 1.Legislation and other instruments 2.Governance - Compliance Delivery Champions 3.Compliance Risk identification 4. Partnership for Compliance 5. Compliance Result M onitoring System 6. Deci sion Making and Enforcement of Sanction Procedures CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) OR INSTITUTIONS MDAs & ACC MDAs & ACC MDAs with AC C M&C & SPR /Policy Units ACC & MDAs M&C Unit C ommissioner of ACC & Head of NACS National Steering Committee ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE IN CORRUPTION PREVENTION - C ONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FRAMEWORK MDAs Policies and Regulations ACC Act 2008 (as amended in 2019) MDAs Management Team including PS and political heads Validation Processes of the Findings and Recommendations from Systems & Policy Reviews Compliance Monitoring Report with thresholds for sanctions Compliance Management tools - Implementation Plan Matrix, Data collection & analysis tools and Compliance Threshold Barometer ACC Management Team Feedback from the MDAs and review of recommendations and strategy Systems and Processes Review Improvement Periodic Impact Evaluation Integrity Management Committees (IMCs) Warnings to MDAs who cannot meet full Complianceby: 1. ACC Commissioner 2. NACS National S teering Committee Rewa rds for full Compliance ACC indict and prosecute MDAs for Non - Compliance (compliance below threshold) Internal Audit report of MDAS share d with ACC M&C Unit ACC Prevention De partment to work with Chief Minister and NACS National Steering Committee Share Compliance Risks with appropriate authorities – MOF, HRMO, PSC Development of Compliance Result Plan Matrix from Systems & Policy Reviews MDAs workshops on Complia nce Issues


  • 3670 Total Views
  • 2915 Website Views
  • 755 Embeded Views


  • 0 Social Shares
  • 0 Dislikes

Share count

  • 0 Facebook
  • 0 Twitter
  • 0 LinkedIn
  • 0 Google+

Embeds 9

  • 21
  • 31 anticorruption.gov.sl:8069
  • 14
  • 41 webdisk.anticorruption.gov.sl
  • 256 www.anticorruption.gov.sl
  • 16 anticorruption.gov.sl
  • 4 google.com'
  • 17
  • 1 www.google.com