In Kenya, When You are Poor - You Die Alone

By F. Itam

Today I found out JG, someone I knew died. Personable and intellectual in his way, JG always struck me as someone that was curious about the world. JG had an opinion on everything, be it politics, the economy or even the winner of the 2010 World Cup, sadly which he will not see.

Though the father of three sons (whom he was immensely proud of) had his personal demons - JG was always there to lend a hand. With the practical knowledge he had acquired in his 36 years of life, JG always had a solution. And there was nothing that was impossible to him  - until he tried it.

JG went missing on Monday evening. On Tuesday his family and colleagues assumed he would show up. It was not the first time JG who enjoyed his tipple had gone missing in "action". But he always showed up - cowed by the anger and worry he had brought on. However, within a few days, JG would be back to his form - giving advice on the life situations we found ourselves in.

But this Tuesday and today - JG did not show. After visiting hospitals and police stations, JG was found at the mortuary. It turns out that he died on Monday night under circumstances we shall never truly know. But like the others who die in poverty, it took searching  throughout Nairobi for him to sadly surmise what befell him. You see in a country with high mobile phone usage rates, unfortunately even the police are unable to inform the next of kin when they come upon a body.

I once asked JG how come he knew so much and he told me that during the Kenyatta and Moi regime's his father had been a senior civil servant. This meant that he had the opportunity to attend a good school in Nairobi. Unfortunately, JG's father was part of Daniel Moi's purge on all that was above mediocre and his father was detained for years. Such punishment was not only meted out on JG's father but ultimately his younger dependent children of which JG was one. Thus JG was pulled out of the Nairobi school and wound up in a rural one. The frustration of his unquenched curiousity for knowledge not being met and adaptation to rural life meant that JG's education henceforth was erratic. Later on he had to make do with the university of life, taking on any job there was.

It is ironic that the ICC have today granted the Louis Moreno Ocampo’s request to launch an investigation on crimes against humanity in Kenya covering the period between 1st June 2005 and 26th November 2009. This is because people like JG are not alone in having had to suffer the death of their aspirations long before the expiration of their mortal bodies. However, the people that were behind the regime that ensured that JG would never go far in life remain un-prosecuted.

JG R.I.P

Africa Union must rid itself of Corrupt Dictators and their Sons

At its inauguration in 2002, the Africa Union (AU) sets itself ambitious goals "to promote peace, security, and stability on the continent; to promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance; to promote and protect human and peoples' rights. It also aims to establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and in international negotiations and to promote co-operation in all fields of human activity (in order) to raise the living standards of African peoples. The ultimate goal of the AU is to establish a United States of Africa" Source:http://www.africa-union.org

There are many issues that may derail the AU from achieving the goals it has set itself however the most critical of these issues has to do with the very kind of people who constitute the AU leadership. For example the current Chairman of AU in the person of Gaddafi has been a dictator since 1969. For forty years he has ruled his country with iron hand jailing opposition members, restricting freedom of speech, assembly and limiting political activities in attempt to stay in power for good. He frowns on any idea about democracy and has consistently argued that democracy is foreign and unAfrican.

Museveni of Uganda came to power in 1986 and has since ruled his country as his personal estate. In 2003 he had the presidential term limit set by the constitution abrogated so he could be president for life. Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea came to power in 1979 after overthrowing his own uncle and executing him. In that same year Dos Santos of Angola took over power and begun to rule. Both are still president today. In Burkina Faso Blaise Campore has been in power since 1987 and is still adamant about leaving office. Congo Brazzaville´s Denis Sassou Nguesso has used every means just to stay in power. Since 1982 Paul Biya of Cameroon has won every election is his oil rich but economically impoverished country and likewise Hosni Mubarak of Egypt who since 1981 has been president of the North African country. Ben Ali of Tunisia has resisted every attempt to leave office changing the country´s constitution just to stay in power.

Gaddafi has never been elected in his forty year reign as the head of state of Libya. Omar Al Bashir has not been elected. There are no words to describe Mamadou Tandja of Niger and Yahyah Jammeh of the Gambia. Iddris Derby of Chad and Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea have spent more than a decade in power and there is no sign that they are prepared to leave. Ethipoia´s Meles Zenawi is still prime minister after 18 years and it is a waste of time to talk about the tactics he has used to stay in power.

The last time I checked more than half of the over fifty countries that make up the AU had leaders who are unelected and deeply corrupt. Even the rest who claim to have been elected more than half have had their elections questioned by both local and international election observers. Yar´Dua of Nigeria, Ali Bongo of Gabon, Denis Sassou Nguesso, and Mugabe and the elections that brought them into power have all been questioned. The resignation of the head of the electoral commission in Mauritania just immediately after election confirmed what everyone was saying privately at the time.

Thus from Libya where Gaddafi has managed to misrule his country for forty years, to Zimbabwe where the old man still thinks of himself as one that Zimbabwe cannot do without; to Uganda where Museveni and his family are anything but thieves; to Gambia where Jammeh continue to ridicule himself and that of his country with his treatment of HIV/AIDS sufferers; to Kenya where Mwai Kibaki refused to leave office after a humiliating defeat and had to resort to violence to keep himself in power; to Nigeria where corruption and embezzlement have produced a failed state; to Niger where Mamadou Tandja has staged a coup against his own government in an effort to rule for life; to Angola, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Congo where a cabal of corrupt leaders preside over the looting of their countries´ oil revenues; to Ethiopia where Meles Zenawi has turned his country into a prison; to Eritrea where Isaias Afewerki has turned from a freedom fighter to a brutal despot and to Gabon, Togo and DRC where children of former corrupt dictators have assumed the mantle of leadership apparently to continue where their parents left off (including the systematic looting and mismanagement of their countries´ treasuries) there is no sign that continent is going to achieve the lofty goals it has set itself. One needs not look far to see how their incompetence and monumental failures have contributed to the demise of the continent, the countries swimming in rich natural resources yet the people lacking the basic necessities of life.

There are two main characteristics of these leaders which directly go to affect the achievement of the goals set by the AU. First they are all corrupt dictators who are unwilling to relinquish power despite their colossal failures. And second none of the leaders seem to have any good political, economic or social record. Their countries are deeply soaked in poverty. The key question is how is the AU going to promote peace, security, and stability on a continent full of unrepented dictators and how is the AU going to promote democratic principles, popular participation and good governance when the people at the helm of affairs on the continent consistently kick against those laudable ideas?

There is no point arguing that there are strong and direct link between dictatorship in Africa and the high level of insecurity and instability seen all over the continent. We need not to look too far to see how dictatorship, corruption and unfair distribution of resources (poverty) led to many civil wars, coups and counter-coups in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and even this 21st century. The logic is that if people who are poor cannot democratically change their leaders they will have no other alternative but to use force and violence to bring about a change of government hence the many conflicts and wars seen in Africa.

This logic of violent removal of governments was correctly echoed by President Julius Nyerere who warned against the consequences of over staying in power and stealing resources meant for the people:

"We spoke and acted as if, given the opportunity for self-government, we would quickly create utopias. Instead injustice, even tyranny, is rampant…We can try to carve for ourselves an unfair share of the wealth of the society. But the cost to us, as well as to our fellow citizens, will be very high. It will be high not only in terms of satisfactions forgone, but also in terms of our own security and well-being." Julius Kambarage Nyerere, from his book Uhuru na Maendeleo (Freedom and Development), 1973.

The consequences of a continent dominated by tyrants as echoed by Nyerere was given a boost by Obama in a speech to Ghana´s Parliament in which he linked tyranny and corruption in Africa to the high level of poverty, instability and conflict:

"But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable and more successful than governments that do not. Democracy is about more than holding elections - it's also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end". He added: "Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions". People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't" Source: http://www.ghana.gov.gh.11 July 2009.

As Nyerere and Obama correctly hypothesized you can only expect wars, instabilities and conflicts in an environment where tyrants and dictators dominate. Hence one may not be surprised to hear that Somalia is burning, or the Lord´s Resistance Army is heading to Kampala, or rebels have encircled N´Djamena the Chadian capital, or the Great Lake Region is in turmoil they are the consequences of dictatorial rule, bad governance, nepotism, cronyism and rampant corruption. The high number of dictators making up the AU leadership, their unwillingness to allow democracy to work will only continue to breed instability, conflicts and wars and hence will defeat the AU´s key goal of promoting peace, security, and stability upon which all the other goals depend.

Where is the AU heading with these dictators still in office? Can any progress be made towards Africa´s unity and can the United States of Africa be realised with all these tyrants in power? The answer is a big no. The fact is that if the AU is ever going to transform itself into a respected democratic institution made up of democratic member countries then it must as a necessity purge itself of these tyrants and their children who are holding the organisation in bondage.

The question is how can the AU rid itself of these selfish leaders? There are a number of things the AU can and must do.

It must first and foremost abrogate the automatic membership. Throughout the world all serious bodies have constitutions and charters that set out the benchmarks that would-be members must attain before they are admitted. This contrasts the AU where membership is automatic no matter the record of a government or the means by which it came to power. This system is not only wrong but it is also self defeating. It is one of the reasons why AU is full of corrupt dictators and tyrants. It is this automatic membership that has ensured that Mugabe could wrought violence against his people and still has the audacity to attend AU meetings. It is this automatic membership that has ensured that Nguema, Museveni, Nguesso, Santos, Afewerki, Tandja, Kibaki, al-Bashir, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Campore, Biya and Jammeh can do whatever they like in their respective countries and still attend AU meetings. The automatic membership must be abolished and benchmarks set for would-be members to attain before being accepted. That is AU must be made up of serious minded countries committed to democracy, rule of law, protection of human rights, peace, stability and fight the against corruption and poverty. Members must demonstrate their commitment to democracy, rule of law, and fight against corruption and poverty before being admitted as is seen in the EU. This must change if the AU is ever going to be a United States of Africa. In the European Union where membership is earned all the 27 members have democratic governments that respect human rights. Romania and other Eastern European nations whose governments were corrupt were forced to reform before they were admitted into the EU and we know how hard Turkey has tried to become a member without success despite the huge internal reforms it has carried out over the last couple of years. We cannot make the AU a body of no standards AU must have standards and benchmarks if it is ever going to eliminate dictatorship from its ranks.

The effort by some leaders to transform the AU into a Commission with more powers to conduct business on behalf of the continent has met fierce resistance and continues to be thwarted by these old corrupt guards who see every reform as a threat to their power and corrupt lifestyle. These tyrants continue to torpedo every effort of AU to move from its current position as a talking shop into serious solution solving body. Mugabe and his cohorts and their sons are holding the AU in bondage through their hold on power. They continue to resist every attempt to transform the AU into a useful body. These corrupt dictators have and still continue to frustrate the good intentions of the body but the AU must not capitulate but work to adopt and implement resolutions that will force these tyrants to improve human rights, empower women, fight corruption and poverty, promote democracy and ultimately give up power.

Furthermore, to prevent the AU from being dominated by tyrants and their children the Africa Union must insist that leaders who are not democratically elected by their citizens cannot become a Chair of the body. If a leader of a country wants to be the Chair of the august body then he/she must subject himself/herself to rigours of elections in his country. Such simple demands by the AU will make these tyrants consider their positions carefully. They will be ashamed to request for a chairmanship position when they know they are not democratically elected. The current situation in which Gaddafi a lifelong dictator chairs the body is not only unacceptable but is also an insult to all the democratically minded people in Africa.

Additionally to boost its position to rid itself of these tyrants the AU must lobby the democratically elected leaders like Senegal´s Wade, Ian Khama of Botswana, Ghana´s Atta Mills, Zuma of South Africa, Benin´s Yayi Boni and others to persuade these tyrants to adopt democracy. The tyrants must be persuaded to stand down and allow free and fair elections to be held. Any tyrant who refuses to stand down should be suspended until free and fair elections are held. The AU is not going to make any progress if the leaders are pampered to do what they want. AU leaders must recognise that Africa cannot harness her strategic importance in this new global order unless there are democratic and institutional reform that will rid the continent of absolute dictators and their corrupt machinery which for so long a time has been responsible for the misery and high levels of poverty seen throughout Africa.

Again the AU should push for genuine democracy in its member countries like the one in Ghana. I am not talking about just elections I am talking about free and fair elections that give opposition equal access to state media and resources. The situation whereby incumbent governments monopolise state resources and employ all manner of tactics to win power as happened in Equatorial Guinea, Congo, and Zimbabwe is a recipe for disaster.

In addition, the AU must insist that children of former dictators cannot automatically replace them when they leave office. The current situation where children of former dictators have been installed as presidents in sham elections is not only an insult to people of these countries but is an indictment on the credibility of AU as a body. It is unacceptable for Faure Eyadema of Togo, Joseph Kabila of DR Congo and Gabon Ali Bongo of Gabon to replace their fathers as presidents. These precedents and developments seem to have encouraged Gaddafi, Museveni and Hosni Mubarak who are busy grooming their children to replace them. This trend is not only dangerous but it is also a recipe for conflict and instability and the earlier the AU sends a clear message to these leaders the better. These dictators and their children must be prevented from establishing dynasties in Africa.

Also the current practice where a country is only suspended when there is coup is not fair to the citizens of Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Niger, Gambia, and Eritrea who suffer human right abuses on the daily basis. AU should not suspend only countries where coups have taken place but must also suspend all countries whose leaders engage in human rights abuses and corrupt practices that push their citizens into poverty and economic annihilation. If a country is suspended because a coup has taken place, is it also not morally right to suspend a country when its leaders loot their resources, and engage in human rights violation? If citizens of a country like Libya are denied a say on how their leaders are elected or how their country is governed is it not enough to suspend that country until the citizens are given the opportunity to determine who should lead them?

Again the AU must make sure its institutions are headquartered in countries that respect human rights and rule of law, eschew corruption and is a democracy. I cannot imagine Gambia being made the headquarters of the AU´s Human Right Commission when Jammeh is busy killing journalists in cold blood and has threatened to annihilate people who freely express their views in that country. It is very shocking that the AU seems to be pampering these leaders. I can hardly comprehend why and how a nation whose leader is known to be abusing the rights of its citizens is made the headquarters of a human right commission. AU has got to be really serious if it wants the rest of the world to take it serious. Therefore certain criteria must be met before headquarters are cited in a country and the AU must not hesitate to remove the headquarters when the situation there changes. Ethiopian leaders must demonstrate their commitment to democracy, rule of law, justice and equality before the law. The eroding of democratic values in that country must be of much concern to the AU. I strongly believe Ethiopia should loose its headquarters status if the leaders continue on the path of dictatorship. This will send a clear message to the rest of the leaders that dictatorship and human rights abuse will not be tolerated in the new AU.

Moreover, AU must compile annual reports about human rights, corruption, and abuse of power in all member countries and sanction those countries found to be in breach of AU Charter. If we are ever going to rid ourselves of the dictators and the rampant corruption and abuse of power associated with their regimes then the AU must act and apply sanctions.

AU should engage the people of Africa in its programmes. Very few people know what goes on at the AU headquarters and we are not going to build a successful Africa when the people who make up the continent are excluded from its activities. Universities and other institutions of higher learning must be involved in AU´s activities to sensitise the people and to build grassroot support in member countries. Therefore AU Chapters must be established across Africa: in universities, colleges and high schools to make the people aware of what AU is doing. AU must organise symposia and debates and other competitions in schools. The advantage is that since the students are going to be the future leaders and policy makers in Africa their involvement will help inculcate and build support for AU. To add to this AU must publish news letters and distribute them to schools, civil society organisations, government departments and other institutions to create awareness. Since we are in the information age internet, e-mail and other information distribution methods must be employed to deliver information about the AU to the people. Editors of both print and electronic media must be encouraged to cover AU activities and events.

The AU must also involve the intellectuals, diplomats and technocrats in Africa. President Julius Nyerere the illustrious son of Africa says:

"...intellectuals have a special contribution to make to the development of our nation, and to Africa. And I am asking that their knowledge, and the greater understanding that they should possess, should be used for the benefit of the society of which we are all members." Julius Kambarage Nyerere, from his book Uhuru na Maendeleo (Freedom and Development), 1973.

In short the people of Africa of whom the AU belong must be involved, but this involvement of the people will come to nothing if the dictators are not persuaded to hang off their glove.

Above all, the tyrants themselves must acknowledge that it is in their own interest to give up power and allow democracy and rule of law to prevail. The cost of holding on to power may be costly not only in terms of satisfactions forgone, but also in terms of their own security and well-being.

If the prosperity and stability Obama spoke about and the contribution of intellectuals Nyerere mentioned above as well as the AU´s own long term goal of a United States of Africa are to be realised and have effect in Africa then the AU must at any cost rid itself of the corrupt dictators and their children who are lining up to take their position. You cannot ask intellectuals to play a role while the dictators are undermining their effort.

The AU will not be able to reverse decades of low per capita income, low productivity, slow pace of social and economic development, poor state of infrastructures and weak economies if steps are not taken to ensure that democracy is established on the continent, and that all leaders subject themselves to the rigours of election, fight corruption and poverty and promote peace, stability and development.

If the AU is ever going to realise any of the goals it has set itself then it must as a matter of necessity purge itself of the dictators and their sons.

By Lord Aikins Adusei

Political Activist and Anti-Corruption Campaigner.

IMF, World Bank & Lending Institutions: Agents Promoting Poverty or Development? By Lord Aikins Adusei

According to The World Bank, it is, “a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique development institutions owned by 184 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Each institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, communications and many other purposes."

The above statement of claim taken from the World Bank website contains half truth. Yes it is true that in theory the World Bank would like to reduce global poverty but in practice it is the opposite. The fact still remains that both the Bank and the IMF have done very little to help the world´s poor rather their condition has been worsened by the past and present behaviour of the Banks. There is little evidence to back the claim of both institutions that they are a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries. The World Bank may be a vital source of financial assistance to the corrupt regimes in these poor countries and not to the poor. There is no evidence to suggest that the poor people from third world countries have benefited from loans given to their governments. At best what the Bank and IMF have helped the poor countries to do is to build up massive debts that they may never be able to pay.

Third World countries including the whole of Africa have incurred trillions of dollars in debts through loans contracted from the Bank, IMF and Western governments which the people who now wallow in utter poverty, never benefited. Most of these conditional loans were either stolen or used to service debts already owned by these poor countries. Part of the loans were also used to pay foreign expatriates supplied to the poor countries by IMF, World Bank as ´technical experts´ but whose contribution is the result of poverty seen in the third world. Again the loans were used to prop up corrupt regimes who diverted the funds to their private bank accounts in Switzerland, France, Britain, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg and Austria among others.

In 2006 for example, developing countries owed $3.7-trillion in odious debt, servicing more than $570-billion per annum. An analysis by economist James Henry revealed that more than $1-trillion worth of loans "disappeared into corruption-ridden projects or was simply stolen outright". Out of this debt Africa owes $200 billion and uses $14 billion annually to service it, money that could be used to provide education, healthcare other basic needs for  the people. The over $200 billion that African countries owe to foreign creditors represents a crippling load that undermines economic and social progress. The all Africa Churches Conference says this debt and its servicing represent "a new form of slavery, as vicious as the slave trade".

The servicing of such massive debts has brought untold and worsening economic hardships to the poor as third world governments have been forced to freeze investments in education, health, transport, agriculture, housing, sanitation and other vital infrastructures. Evidence of this hardship are chronic poverty, malnutrition, diseases, starvation, hunger, decaying and inadequate infrastructures and economic failures seen everywhere in the developing world. The sad aspect of these debts servicing is that the current generation who are paying for it never requested it nor benefited from it in anyway. The debts were incurred at a time when these countries did not even need loans yet World Bank, IMF and Western governments encouraged them to go for it.

Africa Action a Not for Profit Organisation says, "The albatross of illegitimate debt diverts money directly from spending on health care, education and other important needs. While most people in Africa live on less than $2 per day, African countries are forced to spend almost $14 billion each year servicing old, illegitimate debts to rich country governments and their institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Over the past two decades, African countries have paid out more in debt service to foreign creditors than they have received in development assistance or in new loans. Much of Africa's foreign debt is illegitimate in nature, having been incurred by unrepresentative and despotic regimes, mainly during the era of Cold War patronage. Loans were made to corrupt leaders who used the money for their own personal gain, often with the full knowledge and support of lenders. These loans did not benefit Africa's people. More generally, many Africans question the notion of an African "debt" to the U.S. and European countries after centuries of exploitation. They ask, "Who really owes whom?"Yet, despite the social and economic costs of this massive outflow of resources from the world's poorest region, the wealthy creditors of Africa's debts continue to insist these debts be repaid." Source www.africaaction.org /campaign_new /debt.php

Joseph Hanlon of Jubilee Research UK gives details to what happened to monies loaned to Mobutu of former Zaire now DR.Congo. He says: "Much of poor country debt is related to the Cold War, when both sides pushed money at their supporters. Zaire's ruler, Mobutu Sese Seko, was one of the world's most corrupt leaders and it was for his government that the word kleptocracy was first coined. Mobutu became one of the world's richest men, with a personal fortune estimated at more than $10 billion owning palaces in Europe and Zaire. But the West saw Mobutu as a loyal ally in the Cold War (in part for his support of the US, in its backing for UNITA in Angola). In 1978 the IMF appointed their own man, Edwin Blumenthal, to a key post in Zaire´s central bank. He resigned two years later, complaining of "sordid and pernicious corruption" that was so serious that "there is no chance, I repeat no chance, that Zaire's numerous creditors will ever recover their loans." And look what happened after this report.

Shortly after Blumenthal's report to the IMF, it gave Zaire the largest ever loan given to an African country. When Blumenthal wrote his report, Zaire's debt was $5 billion; by the time Mobutu was overthrown and died in 1998, the debt was over $13 billion. In the six years after Blumenthal's report, the IMF lent Zaire $600 million and the World Bank $650 million. In those six years Western governments lent Mobutu nearly $3 billion.

About 50% of the $13-billion was stolen and deposited in Western Banks notably Switzerland and France while the rest was wasted on white elephant projects that never solved the poverty problem in the country. Today majority of Congolese live on less than a dollar a day while hundreds of millions of dollars are paid to the IMF and World Bank every year as fees for loans taken and stolen by Mobutu.

In another classic example, the World Bank lent Indonesia a total of US$30 billion in the course of General Suharto's three decades of rule. In 1998, World Bank resident staff in Indonesia estimated that: "at least 20-30 per cent of GOI [Government of Indonesia] development budget funds are diverted through informal payments to GOI staff and politicians, and there is no basis to claim a smaller 'leakage' for Bank projects as our controls have little practical effect on the methods generally used". That means by the Bank's own account that up to US$9 billion of World Bank loans to Indonesia were wasted through corruption and that World Bank staff knew it. And they did absolutely nothing to stop the corruption. Today the poor people of Indonesia are still paying for the billions of dollars wasted before the eyes of IMF.

In Philippines during the regime of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the Bank and IMF were absolutely aware of the fact that most loans to Philippines were transferred into the bank accounts of Ferdinand Marcos and his generals; nevertheless they considered it as a necessary bribe for paying the political staff in power in order to ensure the acceleration of the neoliberal counter reform. As a result World Bank lent Marcos $400m in 1980; $251m in 1982 and $600m in 1983 and Marcos deposited the money in his accounts in Switzerland. So far the Philipinos are still paying for the policies of the Bank and IMF.

Dr. Susan Hawley author of  Exporting Corruption has written extensively about how loans taken and diverted into private banks by Ferdinand Marcos have gruesomely affected Philippines´ development and her quest to reduce poverty. She says: "The US company, Westinghouse won a contract in the early 1970s to build the Bataan nuclear plant in the Philippines. It was alleged that Westinghouse gave President Ferdinand Marcos US$80 million in kickbacks. The plant cost $2.3 billion three times the price of a comparable plant built by the same company in Korea. Filipino taxpayers have spent $1.2 billion servicing the plant's debts even though the plant has never produced a single watt of electricity because it was built at the foot of a volcano near several earthquake faultlines. The Philippine government is still paying $170,000 a day in interest on the loans taken out to finance the nuclear plant and will continue to do so up to the year 2018. A Philippino Treasurer Leonor Briones recently commented on the loans: "It is a terrible burden which never fails to elicit feelings of rage, anger and frustration in me. We're talking of money that should have gone to basic services like schools and hospitals". Source: Dr. Susan Hawley.

Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International, in her book Odious Debts estimates the Philippino dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, and his wife Imelda, pocketed literally one-third of the Philippines' entire borrowing – much of it in the form of kickbacks and commissions on aid and loan-funded projects. His personal wealth when he was overthrown was $10 billion. Source: Jubileeresearch.org.

The behaviour of the two Banks and other lending institutions to prop up corrupt regimes explains why after 50 years of loans there has not been any appreciable reduction in poverty levels world wide and especially in Africa. As I said the best the two Bretton Woods institutions have done is to help the poor countries to build massive debts and increase poverty. Today majority of the 945 million Africans (70%) live on less than two dollars a day meanwhile hundreds of billions of dollars have been loaned to their corrupt leaders and there is nothing to show for it.

James Wolfensohn, Ex-World Bank President seems to disagree and says: "As a public institution we are accountable for helping our borrowers to see that the money allocated under Bank-financed operations is being spent on what it should be spent on and that our borrowers are getting good value for what is being spent". But how does Wolfensohn reconcile his statement with reports regarding loans to dictators in Africa, Asia and South America that produced nothing but poverty? The question is has the billions of loans and aid to third world countries change anything for the poor people in those countries? Can Wolfensohn say with empirical evidence that countries that have borrowed money from the Bank got value for the money? I do not think so. There is no evidence to suggest that IMF and World Bank even made the effort to ensure the people benefited from the loans and there is no evidence to prove that both institutions made effort to recover the money from Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, or the Banks in Switzerland after it became obvious the dictators had stashed the money in foreign Banks. The two mega banks did not make any effort because they knew future generations cannot afford to refuse to pay as that will be a stain on their credit worthiness. But how fair is it to ask people to pay for things they or their country never benefited?

Instead of being agents of growth, development and helping to fight poverty, what the two institutions and their western political masters have done so far is to entrench poverty, diseases, hunger, starvation and malnutrition in these poor voiceless countries. The pressure on the poor countries to meet their debt obligations has forced many of them to use scarce resources to service these debts to the detriment of their economies and their peoples. If indeed the Bank and the IMF are committed to reducing poverty why would they loan money to corrupt regimes or refuse to take responsibility for the failures of their own policies and actions? Why would they help poor countries to build massive debts only to wash their hands off the debt? And why should poor Africans, Asians and Latinos be made to pay the odious and illegitimate loans that they never benefited? Why should poor African and third world countries be made to take responsibility for the failures of IMF and the Bank´s ill conceived policies that have brought misery and untold hardships to the poor? Who should take responsibility for these odious and illegitimate debts is it the Bank who loaned out of negligence and without due diligence or the people who never benefited?

To ask these poor countries to continue to pay these debts is not only unfair but morally not justified. Poor countries should stop paying these odious and illegitimate debs unless the IMF and the World Bank can prove that the people benefited from it. World Bank and IMF were wilful accomplices to the loot, corruption and mismanagement that took place during Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, Lansana Conte regimes and which are being repeated by the corrupt regimes of Obiang Nguema, Denis Sassou Nguesso, Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Omar Bongo, Obiang Nguema and Blaise Campore. If lending institutions fail to demand proper accountability from these corrupt rulers then it would be unlawful and improper to ask future generations to pay for the sins of their rulers.

 When consultants Morgan Grenfell urged against the sale of the Uganda Commercial Bank, the World Bank and IMF insisted the sale go ahead. Sold to a Malaysian engineering consortium linked to the brother of the Ugandan president, the bank had to be re-nationalised in 1998 "after running into trouble giving out millions of dollars worth of dubious loans". According to the head of Uganda's privatisation unit, "When [the sale of Uganda Commercial Bank] went bad", the World Bank "disappeared off the radar screen" and refused to take any responsibility for it. Source: greenleft.org.au

Apart from their support for corrupt regimes, the Bank and IMF prescriptive policies have also played a huge role in entrenching poverty in the third world. Worth mentioning are the structural adjustment programme and trade liberalisation which were sold to the poor countries by these financial institutions and supported by the western economic saboteurs. The fact is that the SAP and trade liberalisation among others were ill formulated, implemented and monitored with the results that countries that embraced them have all lived to regret.

The SAP forced onto poor third world countries by the Bank and the IMF forced their governments to abandon their support for the public sector with serious devastating consequences to the health, education and agric sectors. The withdrawal of farm subsidies in particular made it difficult for farmers to produce to support local consumption or compete with their rich Western counterparts who receive billions of dollars of government subsidies every year. The unrests and disturbances over food shortages and high food prices that occurred in Egypt, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mauritania, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia and Sierra Leone in 2008 were the direct result of the Bank and IMF bitter pills prescribed to these poor countries.

Trade liberalisation required the poor countries to privatise or close down certain companies, opening up the economy to foreign goods, reforming economic policy, liberalising labour market, eliminating subsidies, and environmental regulations, eliminating set prices for producers and consumers, increasing exports, cutting government expenditures and giving foreign multinationals free hands to do as they wish often to the detriment of the countries concerned. The cost of trade liberalisation to third world countries is estimated to be $300-billion.

The sad aspect of this exercise is that almost all the companies that were sold went to foreigners and cronies of corrupt government officials and the proceeds stolen or used to service debts already owned by these poor nations. This policy also led to closure of a number of factories, and decline in agriculture output that were sources of livelihoods to hundreds of millions of families. The mention of this retrenchment exercise always brings painful memories to millions who lost their jobs and had to live a life of squalor without any help or whatsoever from their governments.

Also the Bank and the IMF tax and trade policies towards these poor countries always put them at a disadvantage positions when dealing with multinational corporations. Many poor countries are forced to grant tax concessions to multinational corporations as a favour for investing in the third world economies. These concessions include instituting secrete memorandums of agreement, subsidies to foreign corporations and massive tax concessions (such as income tax, usage fees, property tax) which are the primary source of revenue for export-oriented developing countries.

How do you fight poverty when rich companies are made to pay close to nothing for raping countries of their natural resources? Why wouldn´t poverty increase and people die of starvation, hunger and diseases when money meant for development are used to service debts for which the people never benefited?

In an article by Khadija Sharife entitled Capital Flight: Gingerbread Havens, Cannibalised Economies she wrote: "The IMF and World Bank tax policies towards the developing world is very lethal especially where the poor are now caught in tax brackets, courtesy of the IMF and World Bank´s structural adjustment programmes (SAP), instituting policies ranging from tax holidays to the privatisation of state services, carving out huge slices of natural capital at corporate auctions. Africa has collectively lost more than $600-billion in capital flight, excluding other mechanisms of flight such as ecological debt (globally estimated at a potential $1.8-trillion per annum). Thus with the support and collusion of IMF and the Bank, poor countries are loosing billions of dollars in revenue to rich multinational corporations.

The unflinching support that the Bank and the IMF give to multinational corporations against the wishes of third world governments is another reason why poverty is still rampant in Africa and elsewhere. For example, in 1998 the Pakistani anti-corruption agency investigated over 20 Western companies for paying kickbacks to Benazir Bhutto's government for public contracts to provide electricity. Six of the companies later confessed to offering bribes. Instead of receiving support from Britain, France, the US, IMF, World Bank and other Western governments they were told to quash the investigation on the grounds that investors would shy away from Pakistan. The IMF even made a package of loans conditional on the government dropping the charges against the companies involved. Source:www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51975. In the end Pakistan had no choice but to stop the investigations.

It is on record that about 45% of all World Bank project contracts go to multinationals in the US, Germany and Britain why? Why not companies in these poor countries where the projects take place and who finally end up paying for the projects?

But it is not surprising that these multinational financial institutions behave the way they did. Both institutions only acknowledged in 1996 the role corruption plays in entrenching poverty after more than 50 years in existence. Why did they continue to loan to the dictators after mounting evidence that they were looting the loans? Why did it take World Bank 50 years to recognise the devastating impact corruption was having on the world´s poor? Could it be that both institutions are corrupt themselves?

Dr. Jeffrey Winters of Northwestern University says, "The World Bank has participated mostly passively in the corruption of roughly $100 billion of its loan funds intended for development." Other experts estimate that between 5 percent and 25 percent of the $525 billion that the World Bank has lent since 1946 has been misused. This is equivalent to between $26 billion and $130 billion. Even if corruption is at the low end of estimates, millions of people living in poverty have lost opportunities to improve their health, education, and economic condition".

And Sen. Richard G. Lugar speaking about corruption in the World Bank and its impact in fighting poverty said, "Corruption thwarts development efforts in many ways. Bribes can influence important World Bank decisions on projects and on contractors. Misuse of funds can inflate project costs; deny needed assistance to the poor, and cause projects to fail. Stolen money may prop up dictatorships and finance human rights abuses. Moreover, when developing countries lose development bank funds through corruption, the taxpayers in those poor countries are still obligated to repay the development banks. So, not only are the impoverished cheated out of development benefits, they are left to repay the resulting debts to the banks."

In fact, allegations of corruption at the Bretton Woods institutions are as old as the institutions themselves. In 1994, marking the 50th anniversary of its creation at Bretton Woods, South End Press released "50 Years is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund," edited by Kevin Danaher. The book details official Bank and IMF reports that reveal the same kind of corruption and embezzlement back then. In addition, it revealed different types of corruption, for instance, "Beyond the wasted money and the environmental devastation, there was an even more sinister side to the Bank during the McNamara years: the World Bank's predilection for increasing support to military regimes that tortured and murdered their subjects, sometimes immediately after the violent overthrow of more democratic governments.

In 1979, Senator James Abourezk (D-South Dakota) denounced the bank on the Senate floor, noting that the Bank was increasing 'loans to four newly repressive governments [Chile, Uruguay, Argentina and the Philippines] twice as fast as all others.' He noted that 15 of the world's most repressive governments would receive a third of all World Bank loan commitments in 1979, and that Congress and the Carter administration had cut off bilateral aid to four of the 15 --Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Ethiopia -- for flagrant human rights violations. He blasted the Bank's 'excessive secretiveness' and reminded his colleagues that 'we vote the money, yet we do not know where it goes." There is no doubt the money was stolen by the corrupt government officials and dictators who received the money. But the sad thing is that the Bank and IMF have failed to take responsibility for their actions pushing the blame on the poor countries and their poor people who never benefited from it.

Fifty years of loans to the world´s poor and fifty years of extreme poverty and odious debt among the world´s poor. It is as if the World Bank has guided these countries into poverty rather than fight poverty. Can we say these mega financial institutions are truly there to help the world´s poor fight poverty or they serve a higher authority whose aim is to keep the world´s poor in debt and in poverty as Jenkins pointed out is his book 'The Confessions of Economic Hit Man'? That is in reality do the Bank and IMF promote poverty or development?

By Lord Aikins Adusei

The Author is a political activist and anti-corruption campaigner.

Fulfilling Africa’s Economic Dreams

Part I: Africa Must Achieve Political Stability First Before Economic Development

The greatest threat to the economic development of Africa is political instability. Political stability is the foundation of economic development; it is the magic bullet and the magnet that holds all other activities in a country together; and provides the avenue for investment, job creation and raise the necessary revenue needed to fight poverty and diseases. It is an indisputable fact that Economic development thrives well in atmosphere of peace and tranquillity. 

However, since independence many of the countries in Africa have known only wars, coups, dictatorships and violence. This cycle of wars, coups, dictatorships, violence and political instabilities has established the continent as a no go area for investors. Africa scores badly among investors as a place where the risk of investment is high and where businesses are done contrary to norm. Such concerns are largely informed by the anarchy in Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Northern Uganda, Guinea, Mauritania and the dictatorships in Gabon, Libya, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and many other places. 

It is also informed by the violence in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and the tensions in Ivory Coast. Such instabilities, wars and election violence seen in Africa are the major reasons why investors shy away from the continent; capital flight is high and the confidence of those with investment in the continent continue to wane. At the moment about $150b leave the continent annually due in part to the political stalemate in Sudan, Chad, DRC, Niger Delta, Northern Uganda, and the Great Lake Region. 

The chaos, confusion and violence that always characterise elections create an atmosphere that only work to isolate the continent as attractive destination for investment and are the reasons why the continent is seen as the most expensive place in the world to do business. All these instabilities do not help the image of the continent and is a factor why endemic poverty is rampant.

Therefore to ensure investor confidence, promote and sustain economic development and growth, there should be a complete political stability in the whole of the continent. Without political stability it is impossible to achieve any economic development and fight poverty. It is a fact that you cannot rebuild your house while it is still in flames and so African countries must ensure they get stability first before talking about economic development. How do you construct roads in war zones or build a factory in militarised territories? Political stability is the homework African countries must do in order to achieve economic development. Establishing political stability through a democratic process is the magic bullet needed to defeat poverty. 

To achieve political stability there area a number of tough decisions Africans must make. First the leadership in the continent must realise that instability anywhere is a threat to stability everywhere. Therefore they must work together to eliminate all those factors that act as magnet to engineer and fuel the instabilities. 

Tyrannical rule, civil wars, and military adventurism must give way to democratic governance. It is the only way that can bring stability to the continent and prepare her for the economic development that has eluded her peoples for decades. Political stability is highly compatible with economic development; a disruption of one is a disruption of the other. Democratic governance is the political path Africa must chart if it is to prepare itself for economic development and social progress in this 21st Century and beyond. 

This therefore calls for an end to dictatorial rule in all parts of the continent especially in Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Congo, Libya, Egypt and Zimbabwe where few people, their families and cronies have hijacked their countries and taken the people hostage. 

All undemocratic leaders and tyrants must be made to understand that the days of unchecked power and despotic rule are over. The current situation where Gaddafi, a dictator is calling for a federal Africa is totally unacceptable. The only acceptable way is for all leaders including Gaddafi, Obiang Nguema, and Blaise Campore to make themselves available for free and elections if they wish to serve the people and I mean serve the people not to be served by the people. All leaders in the continent must be reminded that they do not own their countries and the resources in them. The claim by Mugabe that “Zimbabwe is mine” should be condemned unequivocally. 

The stability also calls for an end to all civil conflicts, military interventions and armed rebellious currently seen in Sudan, Uganda, DRC, Guinea, Mauritania, Chad, Nigeria and Ivory Coast. Use must be made of the few Africa role models in the continent like Joachim Chissano, Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu to mediate to bring an end to the conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, Northern Uganda, DRC and all the troubled parts of the continent. They should also encouraged the dictators and kleptocrats to loose their grip on power; allow free and fair elections and return all the funds they have looted. All parties including individuals and groups with grievances must be encouraged to seek redress from the Africa Court of Justice instead of rushing to take up arms. 

The current state of political unrest in Africa is in nobody’s interest not governments, opposition parties or the people and that is the more reason why democratic reforms must be spearheaded in countries where people have fewer political rights and cannot democratically change their leaders. People must be given the chance to elect their own leaders. 

There should be a level playing field for the ruling governments and opposition parties so as to avoid allegations of vote rigging that are major cause of instabilities and violence in Ivory Coast, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Somalia among others. To ensure this there should be financial support to political parties and all must have unrestricted access the state media. Again election observers must be allowed without any restriction to observe elections and make their own assessments without pressure from any quarters. 

The AU and the sub regional bodies such as ECOWAS, SADC, EADC, COMESA, AMU and ECCA have a major role to play in ensuring the stability. The AU leaders must be reminded that instability anywhere is a threat to stability everywhere. The days where few individuals take over power and do what they like without the AU or sub-regional bodies saying or doing anything must end. Therefore, the Charters of AU and sub regional bodies should be implemented to the letter and all those who violate the charters should be punished severely. All clauses that limit the bodies from criticising or having greater role to play in times of crisis should be removed. The democratic countries in the continent should work closely together and encourage the less democratic ones to adopt reforms with the aim that Africa stands to gain more from being democratic than being under dictatorships. Therefore all nations must be encouraged to ratify and implement the New Partnership for

Africa Development (NEPAD) charter. 

In addition each country should have a constitution that caps or stipulates a fixed term of office for political office holders and that fixed term should be adhered to even if a candidate is a messiah.

The current situation in Algeria and Tunisia where both presidents have changed the constitution in order to run for a third term of office and in Nigeria where Olusegun Obasanjo tried unsuccessfully to run for a third term is very unfortunate for and must be discouraged at all a cost for it is such actions by African rulers that have brought wars, coups and mayhem to however a peaceful people. Such actions only fuel corruption, nepotism, cronyism, abuse of power and mistrust between the ruling and opposition parties and serve as breeding ground for coups, civil unrest and political instabilities.

Even though the number of armed conflicts has gone down compared to a decade ago, the continent is still prone to instabilities and giving such a political climate, it is obvious that political stability will not be possible without an African Military High Command with powers to crisis, emergencies and crash any rebellion, arms insurgence that may show its ugly head in the Africa political scene. The establishment of AMHC should be done on condition that all leaders will submit themselves to the rigour of elections and allow their people to choose whoever they want to lead them without intimidation, threats or whatsoever. 

Tyrannical rule and military regimes are highly incompatible with the establishment AMHC and therefore all effort must be made to ensure that democracy is respected and that leaders are not forced on the people. Already the Southern Africa Development Community has created what they call SADC Brigade and it is beginning to make impact in the region.

The Pan-Africa Parliament should be fully resourced to deal with issues affecting the continent more importantly corruption, poverty, environmental degradation and political instabilities. Laws enacted by parliament must be binding on all members and countries that frown on the laws must be severely sanctioned. 

The Africa Court of Justice must be made the highest in the continent with powers to settle disputes between and within countries. It must be a court of last resort in the continent. Africans cannot build a just society without a strong media and without contribution of civil society organisations. The media, civil society organisations must be allowed to operate freely without fear of intimidation or attack and under no circumstances should a media house, NGO, and CBO be barred from operating in a country. Therefore in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea and in many other countries where the media and NGOs have been banned governments must be forced by the AU to let them in. 

Western political and business leaders must stop doing business with all the dictators, and coup makers the likes of Bongo, Obiang Nguema, Gaddafi, Mugabe and all those who have used undemocratic means to hold on to power. Sanctions and embargo targeting these leaders (not their people) should be enforced so as to force them to loose their grip on power. Western and Asia defence companies and contractors who illegally and irresponsibly ship arms to the continent to fuel the conflict and create instabilities for their own selfish interests must be identified and barred from doing any business in the continent. 

A democratic Africa free from tyrants, coups, civil wars is the single most important ingredient necessary for attaining economic development because it is an undisputable fact that development thrives in atmosphere of peace and tranquillity not hostilities, instabilities and tyrannical rule. There is no way Gaddafi who doubles as Chairman of AU and head of state of Libya could advice Mugabe or Mwai Kibaki to accept election defeat when he (Gaddafi) has been a dictator for 39 years. There is no way Omar Bongo could advice Obiang Nguema when Bongo is the longest ruling head of state in the world. For Gaddafi and Bongo to offer any genuine advice they must relinquish power and allow free and fair elections to take place. 

Tyrannical rule, civil wars, and military adventurism must give way to democratic governance. It is the only way that can bring stability to the continent and prepare her for the economic development that has eluded her peoples for decades. Political stability is highly compatible with economic development; a disruption of one is a disruption of the other. This is the political path Africa must chart if it is to prepare itself for economic development and social progress in this 21st Century and beyond.

By Lord Aikins Adusei 

The Author is a Political Activist and Anti-Corruption Campaigner

Where are Africa's Political Role Models?

Since Abraham Lincoln became the role model for President Barack Obama, I wonder which African politician President Obama could have picked as a role model if he had run as a candidate in any African country. Currently there are about 53 presidents and prime ministers whose countries form the Africa Union. It should therefore not be difficult to find role models among such a large contingent of leaders.

A google search for possible role model candidates led to Mobutu Sese Seku, Sani Abacha, Iddi Amin Dada, Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo, Samuel Doe of Liberia, Charles Taylor, Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa of Central Africa, Ibrahim Babangida, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Lansana Conte of Guinea, Museveni- Uganda, Milton Obote of Uganda, Bakili Muluzi, Laurent Kabila, Kwame Nkrumah, Jerry John Rawlings, Blaise Campore, Arap Moi, Hosni Mubarak, Omar Al Bashir, Gaddafi, Omar Bongo, Obiang Nguema, Sassou Nguesso, Eduardo dos Santos, Francois Bozize of Central Africa, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, Iddriss Deby of Chad, Valentine Strasser of Sierra Leone, Mwai Kibaki, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia.

After a careful examination and analysis of their record President Obama may find it difficult to settle for any of the above. The reason is that almost all of them have been accused of embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars belonging to their poor countries. Again all of them have demonstrated poor leadership, political immaturity, are insensitive to the plight of the people and have shown no understanding of issues affecting the people including fighting poverty.

Additionally, nearly all of them established one party dictatorship; killed, imprisoned or exiled their opponents; aggressively destroyed press freedom, freedom of speech and association; banned their opponents from contesting elections; kept their people in perpetual poverty while living opulence and extravagant lifestyles.

Furthermore, virtually all of them were or are dictators who have committed human rights abuses against their countrymen including murder, torture and force imprisonment.

Besides, almost all of them were or are military or rebel leaders who illegally ceased power through the barrel of the gun and subjected their people to inhuman treatment including torture, extrajudicial killings and murder. Those who came to power through the ballot box have become anti-democrats and the International Criminal Court is seeking to put a number of them on trial for human right abuses and war crimes.

Moreover, a good number of them have spent decades in power and are unwilling to relinquish it despite their huge failures seen in the form of poverty, diseases, homelessness and wars. Example Omar Bongo of Gabon has ruled for 42 years, Gaddafi of Libya 39 years; Dos Santos and Sassou Nguesso 30 years each; Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea and Robert Mugabe 28 years each, Hosni Mubarak 27 years, Paul Biya of Cameroon 26 years, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda 23 years, Omar Al Bashir of Sudan 20 years, Iddriss Derby of Chad 18 years, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia 14 years.

What is more, despite years in office none has been able to build a successful economy for their people. Despite receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in loans and grants from the IMF, the World Bank, USA, Japan, China and European nations; and also receiving trillions of dollars in revenue from oil, gas, gold, diamond, timber, copper, coltan not a single one of them was able or has been able to put their economies on the level equal to that of the Asia Tigers or even the smallest economy in the European Union. Out of the 53 countries making the Africa Union only one was invited to take part in the G20 Summit that ended in April 2009. Their failure to eradicate poverty has prompted questions as to whether Africans can ever build a prosperous society devoid of abject poverty, blatant official corruption, mismanagement and tyrannical rule.

The Who is Who of Africa's corruption ranking feature Mobutu at the top. He is followed closely by Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Omar Bongo, Eyadema, Hosni Mubarak, Denis Sassou Nguesso, Eduardo Dos Santos, Obiang Nguema, Lansana Conte, Arap Moi, Gaddafi, Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria, Blaise Campore of Burkina Faso, Museveni of Uganda, Paul Biya of Cameroon, Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, Charles Taylor of Liberia, Iddriss Deby of Chad, Bakili Muluzi -Malawi, Frederick Chiluba of Zambia, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Jacob Zuma of South Africa. There are many whose corruption status has not yet been determined. Among them are Joseph Kabila, Paul Kagame, Robert Mugabe, Kenneth Kaunda, Francois Bozize, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia and a host of others.

Corruption, malfeasance, tyranny, mismanagement, nepotism, cronyism, human rights abuse, incompetence and media censorship run through almost all the countries in Africa.

Ghana became the first territory south of the Sahara to gain independence in 1957. In 1966 the army ousted Nkrumah who had ushered in a one party state and was on his way to become a dictator. Nkrumah introduced the Prevention Detention Act in which his political opponents were arrested, tortured and imprisoned without trial. Others were murdered and those who had the chance to flee sought asylum in foreign countries. One coup in 1979 and a second one in 1981 brought Jerry Rawlings to power who spared no effort to annihilate his perceived opponents. He ruled till 1992 when he changed his military uniform into civilian and ruled for another 8 years. Jerry Rawlings, the longest ruling tyrant in Ghana killed all the former heads of state by firing squad leaving only Dr. Limann who lived a miserable life till his death. His administration was largely corrupt and marred by nepotism. He is discredited for sowing the seed of tribal animosities in the country especially between the Akans and the Ewes. In 2000 after 19 years in power and under pressure from the West and the people, Rawlings unwillingly handed over power to an opposition government when his party the National Democratic Congress lost the elections to the New Patriotic Party. The Fourth Republican Constitution drawn up by his regime has a lot of clauses that make him unanswerable to the abuses committed during his regime.

Since independence in 1960 Gabon had known only two leaders. Leone Mba who was elected president in 1961 and ruled till his death in 1967 and was succeeded by Omar Bongo who has since ruled the oil rich but socially and economically impoverished nation for 42 years. He is widely seen as one of the wealthiest and most corrupt rulers in the world. Bongo was a subject of French police investigation that uncovered that he owned at least 33 luxury properties. In February 2009 his nine bank accounts were frozen by a French court. He was implicated in the trial of former Elf Aquitaine executives for accepting bribes to the tune of $40m annually in exchange for oil concessions. A US Senate report of 1997 accused him of spending $100m annually mainly from his Gabon coffers. A US Senate inquiry in 1999 revealed that the giant Citibank held private accounts for Bongo who transferred US$100 million, into it. French News Papers including Le Monde have uncovered about 59 properties owned by him and his family including one bought in 2007 at the cost of 18.8 million Euros. He was sued by Transparency International for stealing Gabon's resources.

Jomo Kenyatta became Kenya's leader at independence in 1963 and ruled till 1978. As usual Kenyatta's Kenya Africa National Union (KANU) was made the only official political party which controlled Kenya for four decades. Kenyatta was replaced by Daniel Arap Moi who also ruled till 2002. Moi's 24 year reign was a dictatorship marred by official corruption and nepotism. He was accused in a report by Kroll International of having banked £1b in foreign banks. He and his family are known to own several properties in Britain and Australia among others. He avoided prosecution for corruption in 2003. Mwai Kibaki who succeeded Moi in 2002 faced a re-election battle which was marred by violence. He has been accused of sheltering Moi and his cronies and not doing enough to fight corruption which cost Kenya at least $1b a year.

Since independence in 1958 Guinea has known only two leaders Sekou Toure who ruled from independence till his death in 1984 and Lansana Conte who seized power in a coup in the year Sekou Toure died. Conte ruled from1984 till his death in 2008. He is seen as one thee most corrupt leaders ever to have ruled an African state. He has been accused of pocketing 70% of all revenues coming from the sale of bauxite in Guinea. A dictator for a quarter of a century he can only be remembered for bringing poverty, misery, deprivation and cronyism to Guinea. After his death army officers led by Capt. Moussa Camara have also seized power and there is little sign that the poverty stricken country will ever taste democracy.

The presidency of Equatorial Guinea has been dominated by two men from the same family since independence from Spain in 1968. Mr Obiang Nguema the current president overthrew his uncle, President Francisco Nguema, in 1979, had him tried and executed. Since taking power Obiang Nguema has presided over a corrupt government. He has curtailed rights and freedoms of his people; allows no opposing views and has dealt mercilessly with the media. Human rights abuses in his fiefdom are widespread and head of the opposition is in exile. Many of the 600,000 inhabitants of his country live in poverty despite billions of dollars of revenue from oil. He and five other corrupt leaders were sued by Transparency International over allegations of corruption and embezzlement.

In Uganda after independence in 1962 and short period of democratic governance the country became a hot bed for coups and counter coups that saw Milton Obote toppled twice; Iddi Amin becoming life president; invasion by Tanzania and a civil war that brought Colonel Yoweri Museveni into power in 1986. Museveni has since ruled till today, he has been in power for 23 years. Like many of his contemporaries his government is very popular in promoting corruption, nepotism and cronyism. Museveni's government is nothing more than an oligarchy. In Uganda Museveni is the president; his wife Janet Keinembabazi Kataha Museveni is the First Lady, MP and a Minister; his son Major Muhoozi Kainerugaba is an army commander of his elite group and a possible successor of Museveni. Museveni's younger brother, Caleb Akandwanaho, is senior presidential advisor on defence. His daughter Natasha Karugire is private secretary to the president. He has vehemently resisted all calls to introduce democratic reforms in Uganda.

In Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda ruled from 1964 the year of independence till 1991 a total of 27 years. He embarked on one party rule that barred opposition parties from actively engaging in politics. Despite being a major copper producer, Zambia under Kaunda's watch slipped from being a potential economic power house into one of the poorest countries in the world. He was accused of corruption by Chiluba's government and spent a few time in jail. His major contribution was to the independence struggles of South Africa and Zimbabwe but he is most remembered for failing to use the huge mineral wealth to better the lot of Zambians. His successor Fredrick Chiluba is battling corruption allegations and parliament has voted to remove his immunity. A High Court in Britain ruled in 2007 that Chiluba and four of his aides conspired to rob Zambia $46m. The elections that brought Rupiah Banda, the current president into power were decried by the opposition as not free and fair.

In South Africa after the brutal regime of the apartheid government came to an end, Nelson Mandela took over and successfully handed power to Mbeki after just one term in office. However, Mbeki was forced out office in September 2008 after a bitter power struggle with Zuma. Mbeki refused to embark on campaign to curb the menace of HIV/AIDS which killed several people under his watch. Crimes of all categories have increased and it seems the nation is slowly joining the rest of the continent as a poor developing country. Jacob Zuma who is likely to become President is embroiled in corruption allegations and a rape case against him was dismissed by the court. His reputation has been badly damaged by rape and corruption charges brought against him.

In Tanzania, Julius Nyerere ruled as the sole leader of the country from independence in 1962 till his retirement in 1985. Under his leadership all political parties were outlawed except the Party of the Revolution which happened to be his party. His social and economic programmes (ujamaa) were a total failure he is however credited for deposing Iddi Amin. Since he left office the country has chalked a lot of successes in the field of democracy and governance and the economy is showing signs of growth. Ex-President Benjamin Mkapa who became president in 1995 successfully transferred power to Jakaya Kikwete in 2005 after 10 years as head of government.

Burkina Faso formerly Upper Volta got her independence from France in 1960. Six years later the army as it has always been were in power. A series of coups in the 1980s saw Thomas Sankara taking over power in 1983 but he too was ousted in 1987 by Blaise Campore who was a close. Campore has since ruled the country as his personal fiefdom he has been in power for 22 years. He is one of the Corrupt Five who were sued by Transparency International for having amassed wealth at the expense his poor people majority of whom live on a dollar a day in this semi-arid country.

In Tunisia, Ben Ali has changed the constitution of the country in order to run for third term in office.

In Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika has won a third term after using the rubber stamp parliament to change the constitution of the state. He has been battling fundamentalists who were denied election victory in the 1990s.

In Togo, after the assassination of the country's first elected president in 1963, Gnassingbe Eyadema took power in a bloodless coup in 1967 and ruled till his death in February, 2005 after 38 years as head of state. His son Faure Gnassingbe was quickly installed as president by the army but international outcry resulted in an election in April 2005 which the army said Faure won 66%.

Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and Chad the norm has been corruption, mismanagement, election violence, torture, dictatorship, murder, imprisonment of political opponents and the use of security forces against the people.

In Africa and the rest of the world the names Mobutu Sese Seku, Sani Abacha, Omar Bongo, Denis Nguesso and Dos Santos are synonymous to blatant corruption, nepotism, cronyism, murder, incompetence and mismanagement. The word Kleptocracy was first coined to describe the nature of Mobutu's government which was nothing but a government of thieves.

However despite the negativities there are some few shining examples.

Botswana, Africa's most successful economy is also the continent's only true democratic country where multi-party democracy has been in place since independence in 1966. It is the least corrupt country in Africa and has a good human rights record. It is the only country in the continent where the leaders have used revenue from the natural resources mostly diamond to benefit the people. It is the world's largest producer of diamonds and the trade has transformed it into a middle-income nation. The current president Seretse Khama Ian Khama came to power in 2008.

Gaining her independence from South Africa in 1990, Namibia has joined the community of democratic nations after Sam Nujoma handed over power to his chosen nominee Hifikepunye Pohamba, after three terms as president. Like Botswana the leadership of Namibia are using revenue from diamond to improve the wellbeing of the people. In Benin an independent candidate won the presidency and in Liberia Johnson Sirleaf, a woman has become president the first in history of the continent.

Nelson Mandela is the only ex-president to have willingly stepped down as president after just one term in office. He is a Nobel Peace Laureate, a statesman, a freedom fighter and a hero not only in South Africa but also around the world. He has a monument erected in his honour by the government of Britain. Another respected personality in Africa is Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu who is also a Nobel Peace Laureate, a Statesman, peace activist and powerful anti apartheid campaigner.

The last of the possible role models is Kofi Annan, a former UN Secretary General who has recently being playing a leading role as a peace mediator and a critique of political corruption and anti-democratic governance in Africa. Since Tutu and Annan are not politicians and therefore are out of the political equation, Obama will have no choice but to scream with the question, “Where are Africa's political role models?”

By Lord Aikins Adusei

Political Activist and Anti-Corruption Campaigner