Cameroon's National Anti-Corruption Commission, known as CONAC, has once again presented its report on the state of the fight against corruption without publicly naming the officials found to be involved in the cases it investigated. The decision has disappointed civil society groups and ordinary citizens who hoped the report would finally put faces to the losses suffered by the public treasury.
What the report covers
CONAC's annual reports describe the cases handled by the commission, the sectors most exposed to corruption and the estimated financial damage caused to the state. Public procurement, customs, taxation, road construction, education and health are regularly flagged as high-risk areas. The reports also list denunciations received from the public and the follow-up given to them.
What the reports generally do not do is name the individuals behind the irregularities. Officials of the commission have defended this approach, arguing that CONAC is an investigative and preventive body, not a court. Publishing names before a judicial decision, they say, could violate the presumption of innocence and expose the commission to legal challenges.
Why critics are not convinced
Anti-corruption activists counter that secrecy protects the powerful. In their view, a report that describes embezzlement in detail but hides the identities of those responsible sends a message that nobody will pay a price. They note that the files transmitted by CONAC to the competent authorities often appear to stall, and that the public has little way of knowing what happens next.
Limits of the commission's mandate
CONAC reports to the Presidency and does not have the power to prosecute. Its findings must be forwarded to judicial bodies such as the Special Criminal Court or to the hierarchy of the administration concerned. Observers say this structure makes the commission dependent on the political will of others, and that independence would require changes to its legal framework.
A broader debate on transparency
The question of naming names goes beyond one report. Cameroon has repeatedly ranked poorly on international corruption perception surveys, and successive governments have promised to clean up public management. Operation Sparrowhawk, which led to the trial of several former ministers and heads of state companies, is cited by the authorities as evidence of resolve, while critics see it as selective.
Transparency advocates propose several reforms:
- Publication of names once files are forwarded to the courts
- Regular public updates on the judicial follow-up of CONAC cases
- Greater independence of the commission from the executive
- Mandatory asset declarations for senior officials, as already foreseen by the constitution
What to watch
The real test of the anti-corruption effort lies not in the publication of reports but in the outcomes that follow them. Until citizens can see investigations leading to trials, recovered funds and sanctions, many will continue to view the annual report as a ritual rather than a turning point.