THE PREVALENCE OF CORRUPTION IN SOMALI PUBLIC SECTOR; AS

MATTER OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

By - ABDIRASHID ISMAIL NOR,

Center for legal study, research and advocacy (CLRE)

Legal and Research consultant

Email: [email protected]

FEBRUARY, 2020

ABSTRACT

Somalia has been suffering from the fierce effects of corruption on economic and social
development. Corruption in Somalia is subject to a variety of political, economic, institutional,
and societal conditions. This study shines a light on the prevalence of corruption in Somalia; as
matter of public perception. The study comprehensively surveys and analyzes the reports, policy
papers, and research on corruption to present and discuss the diverse insights of the empirical
and theoretical research findings.

This study examined on the prevalence of corruption in Somalia; as matter of public perception.
A total of 80 prospective respondents were selected from different institutions were conducted,
including Ministry of Information, Ministry of Finance and State Attorney General, Office of
Audit General, central banks, Office of Public Accountant and local government of Somalia.
using stratified, random and systematic sampling techniques. Besides, to substantiate
quantitative data questionnaire were filled by 80 respondents. The data obtained were analyzed
by using descriptive statistical techniques such as frequencies and percentage and analyzed
using by SPSS.

The multistage sampling technique was applied in choosing the 80 study participants. In this
study, it was found that the public perceived corruption as a serious problem which must be
stopped. Factors responsible for corruption in Somalia were found to include among others

-1-
poverty and unemployment, lack of patriotism, weak judicial system, negative value system and
lack of social and economic security, it was found that the effects of corruption in Somalia
include retardation of economic growth and development, poor infrastructural development,
poverty and unemployment, non-provision of basic amenities and reduction of investment
potentials of the society. Also this study revealed that there were variations in understanding of
corruption. The analysis further revealed that respondents were less concerned in reporting
corruption.

Based on findings of the study, it was recommended that, the ministry of information should
conduct comprehensive awareness towards corruption and the way public reporting corruption
matters. This study recommended the need for attitudinal change. This involves changing the
value system which emphasizes unbridled penchant for materialism.

Keywords: Corruption, Public Perception, Public sector, Somalia.

INTRODUCTION

Corruption is rooted in human nature, with its attendant flaws. As such, instances of fraud (an
act of deception deliberately practiced with the view of gaining unlawful advantage), extortion
(exacting money coercively), embezzlement (appropriating fraudulently to one’s own use what
is entrusted to one’s care), violence, and other forms of criminal activity can be added to the
above definition of corruption. As corruption is usually a consensual crime, secrecy and
collusion characterize its many forms. Even major exposures of corruption may only scratch
the surface of much larger conspiracies; most corruption goes unreported. (Thachuk, 2005)

Corruption also undermines efficiency as time and money are wasted through corrupt activities
at the expense of productive activities and which altogether discourages prospective investors.
Corruption undermines human and capital development in any society or nation. Perhaps the
most tragic effect of corruption on Nigeria has been the failure of the country to attain its
economic potentials. Corruption generates economic distortion in the public sector by
devastating public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more painful.

-2-
It slows down the pace of economic development through manipulation of funds for projects;
it destroys or weakens efficiency and effectiveness of public service, it detracts government
from giving priority to the areas of income and social inequality, poverty, malnutrition and other
areas of need. The net impact of corruption on society is negative. (Ilechukw, 2014)

Corruption is a disease, a cancer that eats into the cultural, political and economic fabric of
society, and destroys the functioning of vital organs. In the words of Transparency International,
“Corruption is one of the greatest challenges of the contemporary world. It undermines good
government, fundamentally distorts public policy, leads to the misallocation of resources, harms
the private sector and private sector development and particularly hurts the poor”.
Corruption is found almost everywhere, but it is stubbornly entrenched in the poor countries of
Sub-Saharan Africa, it is widespread in Latin America, it is deep rooted in many of the newly
industrialized countries, and it is reaching alarming proportions in several of the post-
communist countries.(Amundsen, 1999: 7)

Corruption has been the subject of a substantial amount of theorizing and empirical research
over the last 30 years, and this has produced a bewildering array of alternative explanations,
typologies and remedies. However, as an extensively applied notion in both politics and social
sciences, corruption is being used rather haphazardly. Corruption is understood as everything
from the paying of bribes to civil servants in return for some favour and the theft of public
purses, to a wide range of dubious economic and political practices in which politicians and
bureaucrats enrich themselves and any abusive use of public power to a personal
end.(Amundsen, 1999: 7).

According to Otite (1986:12) corruption is: Perversion of integrity or state of affair through
bribery, favor or moral depravity. It involves the injection of additional but improper transaction
aimed at changing the normal course of events and altering judgments and positions of trust. It
consists of doers and receivers’ use of informal, extra-legal or illegal act to facilitate
matter.(Ladan-Baki, 2014)

Corruption paralyzes efforts for the promotion of justice and sustainable peace in Africa.
Therefore, the entrenchment of corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa should be a matter of concern
for everyone because of its adverse effects. Corruption creates many forms of injustice which

-3-
affect almost every aspect of daily life for ordinary citizens and no sector of the population is
immune from it. Contributors to this book have succinctly demonstrated that corruption in Sub-
Saharan Africa impairs political, economic and social development. It retards development
efforts, hinders administrative development in the bureaucracy and undermines political
institutions by weakening the legitimacy of accountability of governments. (Elizabeth Nduku
and John Tenamwenye, 2014).

As a result of the complexity of corruption, its effects on the systemic existence of its victims
as does its prevalence through the efforts of its perpetuators, its definition has continued to be
shrouded by value preference and differences (Akindele and Adeyemi, 2011:8). This has to
some extent complicated the attainment of a definitional uniformity on the concept within the
academia and practicing world of administration. Given this, the elusiveness of the definition
of corruption (depending on the definer and perspective) within the parameter of intellectual
discourse on Nigerian State and beyond, was eloquently evoked by Yaru quoted in Yelwa,
(2011:2) as thus: “Corruption is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and hence has been defined
in multiple ways. Generally, corruption in public sector is simply the abuse of authority by the
public officials to make personal gains in the discharge of their official duties. It encompasses
activities ranging from bribery, embezzlement, extortion, fraud, favoritism, dishonesty to
related illegal or unauthorized behaviors in pursuance of personal objectives”.(Ladan-Baki,
2014)

According to Robinson, the practice of corruption breeds wastage, aggravates budget deficit
problems, reduces resources available for infrastructure, public services and anti-poverty
programs. Corruption has also created unsuitable social environment for talented African elites,
making them to seek better paid jobs abroad. The absence of these talented people in Africa has
retarded development because human resource is one of the primary inputs for development.
Unfortunately, corruption still continue to impede effective utilization of natural resources
leaving most African countries vulnerable to and dependent on outside interests and markets.
This dependence makes it impossible for them to implement effective development strategies
of their own. (Elizabeth Nduku and John Tenamwenye, 2014)

This explains why the fight against corruption needs to be the concern of every citizen
everywhere in the world. In Africa, while the fight should be primarily on national territory,

-4-
regional and international cooperation is essential. Political will at national level is an essential
ingredient to the successful fight against corruption. Moreover, the will of the general public
root out corruption is paramount. That is why the civil society has a great role to play in this
regard. Continued public awareness and involvement is also a key element in efforts to eradicate
corruption. In addition, leadership is a key element in the efforts to curb corruption in Africa.
Africa needs committed leadership with the capacity to restore the morale and integrity of public
service through ensuring merit-based recruitment and promotion policies and procedures.
(Elizabeth Nduku and John Tenamwenye, 2014).

Likewise, according to KITCT (2013) conducted by FEACC, in Ethiopia, corruption in the

public sector was ranked the seventh most serious problem next to access to safe drinking water
facing the country today. Moreover, the survey identified that, fraud, trickery, embezzlement;
extortion, nepotism, and theft were the principal features by which corruption manifested itself
in Ethiopia. Thus, these indicate that corruption is still among the major problems in Ethiopia
and more importantly, it needs attention both from government and citizens.

As one of the longest instances of state collapse in recent years, Somalia faces many of the
major corruption challenges that affect conflict-torn countries, with rampant corruption and a
deeply entrenched patronage system undermining the legitimacy of the internationally
recognized Transition Federal Government (TFG). Corruption is further exacerbated by the
absence of a functional central government, a lack of resources and administrative capacity,
weak leadership structures as well as a limited ability to pay public officials. (Chene, 2012).
The TFG itself acknowledged gross financial mismanagement and corruption in its “2010
roadmap towards building durable peace and a functioning state” (International Crisis Group,
2012).

A Public Finance Management Unit’s report released in May 2011 also revealed major
discrepancies between TFG financial statements in 2009 and 2010 and the actual internal and
external revenue received. The report estimated that more than $72 million in donor assistance
was stolen between 2009 and 2010, and a further $250 million in revenues could not be
accounted for (Freedom House, 2012). In particular, the audit report uncovered gross public
financial mismanagement, large scale misappropriation of public and donor funds, unethical

-5-
and professional negligence, and concealment of actual resource flows among others.
(International Crisis Group, 2012)

There is a broad consensus that Somalia faces many of the corruption challenges that affect
conflict-turn countries, with widespread corruption permeating all sectors of government and
seriously undermining the fragile peace-building process. Corruption is rampant, based in
deeply entrenched practices of patronage and exacerbated by a lack of resources and
administrative capacity, weak leadership structures as well as a limited ability to pay public
officials, including security forces. (Foundation, 2012)

In addition, most state-building efforts have relied on external sources of funding, which under
some circumstances can undermine further government accountability to its citizens and tends
to reinforce patronage-based systems of governance (Menkhaus, K., 2007). Many observers
believe that levels of corruption within the TFG have increased significantly, with powerful
establishment figures presiding over “a corruption syndicate” that operates with impunity to
manipulate the system and extends well beyond Somalia’s borders. (International Crisis Group,
2011).

Both petty and grand forms of corruption are prevalent in Somalia, permeating key sectors of
the economy such as ports and airports, tax and custom collection, immigration,
telecommunication and management of aid resources. According to a recent audit report by the
Prime Minister’s office, corruption manifests itself through various practices, including gross
public financial mismanagement, large scale misappropriation of public and donor funds,
unethical and professional negligence, and concealment of actual resource flows. Quantifying
corruption is difficult given the various types of corruption and the illicit nature of the activities.
It is even more difficult to assess the consequences in terms of the economic cost and societal
damage. Although there are limitations to corruption assessment methods, Transparency
International believes that perceptions and other methods are useful for gauging corruption. In
its Global Corruption Barometer, Somalia ranks at the absolute bottom as the world’s most
corrupt country tied with North Korea in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Legacy Center for Peace
and Transparency.

-6-
Every research must be based on a theory or theories however this research is based on two
theories which are the Maslow’s Theory of Motivation which is used to explain corruption in
developing countries and the Marxist Structural Conflict Theory which is used to analyze the
level of insecurity in developing countries. The Marxist school of thought in its thesis has tied
down social conflict as a result of economic structures and social institutions. Marx postulates
that the mode of production supersedes and determines the structures of and the character in
social, political and intellectual process of life; it is not the consciousness of man that determines
its consciousness (Marx, 1970). (Ladan-Baki, 2014).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theory that best explain corruption in Somalia is the theory of Prebendalism as postulated
by Richard (1996) which described the nature of Patron-Client relationship in Somalia.
According to theory “state offices are regarded as prepends that can be appropriated by office
holder who use them to generate material benefit for themselves and their constituent and kin
groups”. In Somalia, prepended politics is the order of the day being displayed by political
office holders. Thus, corruption is regularly be perpetrated at will and the society at the
receiving end. Inevitably, the prepend nature of Somalia system in time of its investor client or
identity politics further allows corruption to thrive, undermine and thereby, stagnate the
development of Somali society. Thus theory contends that corruption in Somalia is purely an
elite and political office holder. It argues that people who engage in crime in such society is not
to amass wealth but only a force reaction to the corrupt practices of the ruling class and as a
means of barely keeping alive in the face of the ostentatious display of ill-gotten wealth of the
ruling class. For example, Karl Marx, leader of materialist approach argue that rather than
people’s consciousness determining their well-being, it is the way society organized the
production, distribution and exchange of goods and services that determine their material
condition. The aforementioned theory is very significant because it has actually provided
adequate explanation for the corruption habit of Somalia office holders.

-7-
-8-
1.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Akindele (1995) defines it as any form of reciprocal behavior or transaction where both the
power/office holder can respectively initiate the inducement of each other by some rewards to
grant (illegal) preferential treatment or favor against the principles and interest of specific
organization (or public) within the society. Overall, corruption covers such acts as: a) use of
one’s office for pecuniary advantage, b) gratification, c) influence peddling, insincerity in
advice with the aim of gaining advantage, d) less than a full day’s work for a full day’s pay, e)
tardiness and slovenliness. Osoba (1998, p.378) defines corruption as an “anti-social behaviour
conferring improper benefits contrary to legal and moral norms, and which undermine the
authorities” to improve the living conditions of the people.

The World Bank defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gains. Public office
is abused through rent seeking activities for private gain when an official accepts, solicits, or
extorts a bribe. Public office is also abused when private agents actively offer bribes to
circumvent public policies and processes for competitive advantage and profit. Public office
can also be abused for personal benefit even if no bribery occurs, through patronage and
nepotism, the theft of state assets or the diversion of state resources (World Bank, 1997). A
public official is corrupt if he accepts money for doing something that he is under duty to do or
that he is under duty not to do. Corruption is a betrayal of trust resulting directly or indirectly
from the subordination of public goals to those of the individual. Thus a person who engages in
nepotism has committed an act of corruption by putting his family interests over those of the
larger society (Gire, 1999).

Since corruption is universal and occurs throughout the world, scholars managed to define
corruption according to the context and the condition in which it is practiced. It is also of
especial concern in developing countries. Widespread corruption is a sign of failed state which
can undermine economic growth. According to World Bank, corruption has deep roots in
political and bureaucratic institutions. But, its effect is more in the developing countries than

-9-
the industrial ones, because it undermines government to enact and implement policies in areas
where government intervention is most needed. (Leslie, 2011) These occur when a bureaucrat
accepts, extorts, and solicits a bribe. The public office is also abused when bribery is offered to
circumvent public policies and processes for competitive advantage and profit. (Stiglitz, 1997)

In Asian Development Bank perspectives of corruption as cited by Agbu (2001), corruption is

defined as the behaviour of public and private officers who improperly and unlawfully enrich
themselves and/or those closely related to them, or induce others to do so, by misusing the
position in which they are placed. Systemic corruption also referred to as entrenched corruption,
occurs where bribery (money in cash or in kind) is taken or given in a corrupt relationship.
These include kickbacks, pay-off, sweeteners, greasing palms, etc) on a large or small scale. It
is regularly experienced when a license or a service is sought from government officials. It
differs from petty corruption in that it is not as individualized. Systemic corruption is apparent
whenever the administration itself transposes the expected purposes of the organizations;
forcing participants to follow what otherwise would be termed unacceptable ways and
punishing those who resist and try to live up to the formal norms (International Center for
Economic Growth, 1999).

Corruption is the colonization of fraudulence; the brazen celebration of impunity, which

pollutes the ethical hygiene of a society (Ogbunwezeh, 2005). Corruption is a worldwide
phenomenon, but prominent in countries of the third world, particularly in Africa. Johnston and
Rose-Ackerman (1997) pointed out that the wide spread of corruption is a symptom of a poorly
functioning state, and a poorly functioning state can undermine economic growth. Where
corruption is situated in the structural nature of any society, countries with extensive natural
resources may fail to develop in a way that benefits ordinary citizens (Edewor and Sokefun,
2002).

Corruption is a complex phenomenon in Somalia. It penetrated almost all institutions and

branches of government. Government bureaucrats consider as a pejorative receiving bribes and

- 10 -
embezzling government assets. They justify their actions as the government's inability to pay
them. Citizens, on the other hand, became immune to corruption. Government officials seek
their clan's protection if they are accused of corruption or breaking the law. Therefore,
corruption in Somalia is institutionalized, protected and quasi-legalized. According to World
Bank’s definition, corruption is the “misuse of office for unofficial ends.” (Leslie, 2011, p. 49)
It is also defined as the use of entrusted power for private gains.

Both petty and grand forms of corruption are dominant in Somalia, and they penetrated key
sectors of the economy such as the ports, airports, tax and customs collection, immigration,
telecommunication and management of aid resources. A report released by the office of the
prime minister in 2010 revealed that Gross public financial mismanagement and massive scale
of misappropriation of public and donor funds occurred. The report described as unethical,
unprofessionalism behaviors in systematically concealing the actual resource follows. (Group,
Feb 2011)

This definition includes such behavior as bribery (use of a reward to pervert the judgment of a
person in a position of trust); nepotism (bestowal of patronage by reason of inscriptive
relationship rather than merit); and misappropriation (illegal appropriation of public resources
for private uses) [Banfield, 1961]. To the already crowded landscape, Osoba (1996) adds that
corruption is an anti-social behavior conferring improper benefits contrary to legal and moral
norms, and which undermine the authorities to improve the living conditions of the people.
However, attempts to identify corruption with specific legal or moral offences are unlikely to
succeed. Perhaps the most plausible candidate is bribery: bribery is regarded by some as the
quintessential form of corruption (Noonan, 1984; Pritchard, 1998). What of nepotism? Surely
it is also a paradigmatic form of corruption, and one that is conceptually distinct from bribery.
The person who accepts a bribe is understood as being required to provide a benefit to the briber,
otherwise it is not a bribe; but the person who is the beneficiary of an act of nepotism is not
necessarily understood as being required to return the favour.

- 11 -
In fact, corruption is exemplified by a very wide and diverse array of phenomena of which
political corruption is also one of its kinds. Political corruption is the abuse of entrusted power
by political leaders for private gain, with the objective of increasing power or wealth (Imohe,
2005). Political corruption need not involve money changing hands; it may take the form of
‘trading in influence’ or granting favours that poison politics and threaten democracy. It occurs
when the politicians and political decision-makers, who are entitled to formulate, establish and
implement the laws in the name of the people, are themselves corrupt. It also takes place when
policy formulation and legislation is tailored to benefit politicians and legislators

In Somalia corruption affected almost all institutions of government. It affected the office of
the president, the prime minister, parliament, the mayor of the capital, security agencies as well
as international aid. The practice of nepotism, extortion, and the theft of public resources are
common. These officials misused their official positions to enrich themselves and ignored the
public interest. A report released by the International Governance Institution-Somalia,
described the situation like this: “As one of the longest instances of state collapse in recent
years, Somalia faces many of the major corruption challenges that affect conflict-torn countries,
with rampant corruption and a deeply entrenched patronage system undermining the legitimacy
of the internationally recognized Federal Government (FG). Corruption is further exacerbated
by the absence of a functional central government, lack of resources and administrative
capacity, weak leadership structures as well as a limited ability to pay public officials.” (Group,
Feb 2011).

According to an official document from the Office of the Auditor General of the Federal
Republic of Somalia, the total expenditures during the months of March, April, and May of
2015 was US$31,473,638.85 (Legacy Centre for Peace and Transparency 2016). During this
time, no wages for public service employees or the security forces were paid, leaving observers
asking where these funds went (Legacy Centre for Peace and Transparency 2016). In fact, local
anti-corruption activists note that salaries for civil servants and members of government security
forces have not been paid since mid-2016 (Marqaati 2017a).

Systemic corruption and the large-scale misappropriation of state funds by governing officials
is the norm in Somalia (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016). During 2013 and 2014, for instance, the
Central Bank was severely criticized for the fact that 80% of withdrawals from the state

- 12 -
accounts were made by individuals and not used to fund government operations or the provision
of public services (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016). Instead, funds were used for private gain,
channeled into slush funds and used to shore up political support through patronage networks
(Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016). The then president and some of his associates were also accused
of using the central bank to siphon off assets abroad (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016). The public
scandal led to the resignation of the governor of the Central Bank in mid-2013 (Bertelsmann
Stiftung 2016).

The recent elections, first parliamentary and then presidential, have been marred with
allegations of rampant corruption (Burke 2017). According to Abdirazak Fartaag, a former
Somali government official, the new election system by which 14,000 representatives elected a
parliament who in turn selected the president has spawned “corruption inflation”, with some
parliament seats reputedly going for more than $1 million (Gettleman 2017). Other Somali
investigators have posited that at least $20 million has changed hands during parliamentary
elections (Gettleman 2017). In turn, the presidential election, while hailed by the UN as a
‘milestone’, has been labelled by analysts and some Western diplomats as a ‘landmark in
corruption’ (Gettleman 2017). Rival presidential candidates accused each other of bribing MPs
and senators in exchange for their support: according to some unconfirmed reports, votes were
being sold for up to $30,000 (BBC News 2017). Local anti-corruption campaigners likewise
assert that tens of thousands of dollars were handed to individuals to secure support in the vote
(Burke 2017), with one Mogadishu-based anti-corruption group, Marqaati, stating that “this is
probably the most expensive election, per vote, in history” (BBC News 2017).

In the period of August 2016 and February 2017 witnessed some of sever corruption cases
such as intimidation and harassment of parliamentary candidates by clan members and
political actors, this included forcing candidates to withdraw from running the contest and
blocked from entering the building where voting is happening by security forces (marqaati,
2017). Also, Bribes during the elections were systematic and normalized. Bribes were mostly
targeted elders, delegates, and the State Indirect Electoral Implementation Team (SIEIT). In
addition, some cases of unrealistic winning margins have been recorded where some candidates
won 100% of the entire votes. The same cases happened in the presidential elections, some

- 13 -
reports stated that payments of $500-$1000 to members of parliament by presidential candidates
for signing the required 20 members of parliament for each presidential candidate.

Muddying the waters further still, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia
are suspected by some to have funded the election campaigns of certain candidates in exchange
for favorable business deals or other geopolitical interests, thereby indirectly fuelling corruption
(Burke 2017). The Election Commission even banned MPs from bringing mobile phones into
the venue where the vote was being held9 for fear that they would take pictures of their ballot
papers which they could use to prove to those who had given them money that they had voted
as they had been bribed to (Soliman 2017).

Political corruption expanded to include almost political institutions. According (2016 State of
Accountability in Somalia report) there were 782 corruption complaints from ministries’
employees and individuals from ordinary people that observed or directly experienced cases of
corruption. The report explained the existence corruption practices in those ministries; the
ministry of interior, ministry of defense and ministry of internal security are the ministries with
the most complaints with ratios 47%, 26%, 16% respectively. However, other ministries
recorded lowest proportions, ministry of finance 5%, ministry of justice 4%, and ministry of
education 2%. Given the reasons for the high rate of corruption in the ministries that have
security nature, we note that they tend to be the major ministries that comprise the police, traffic
police, martial and the National Intelligence and Security Agency. These ministries perform
most ministry-civilian connection on a day to day base, such as law execution and security.
Badly, they lack of any legal frameworks controlling their authorization and jurisdictions as
well as the absence of oversight organizations that helps in preventing corruption. Set of these
reasons is having an erosive impact on Somali society and reinforcing the corruption
environment.

Somalia’s fragmented political landscape means that in many areas local strongmen are
inseparable from corrupt politicians whose rent seeking behaviour misappropriates resources
and diverts tax revenues and development aid (Ahmad 2016). The result is that self-enrichment
takes precedence over sharing of meagre public resources equitably (Ahmad 2016). Clan-
identities dominate politics, and there is an expectation that clan members who secure

- 14 -
government positions or ministerial portfolios will act as guardians of clan, rather than public,
interest (Diis 2016). As such, ministers invariably appoint kinsmen as advisors, secretaries and
general hangers-on. Furthermore, clan structures offer impunity; officials are able to seek clan
protection if they stand accused of corruption or illegality (Diis 2016).

2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Source of information for this research was mainly through the use of questionnaire, journals,
library books and the internet materials; Stationeries (Record books, Pencils, Biros).
Methodology is an integral part of any research work which describes various materials and
methods to carry out the research work, which include the targeted population, data analysis,
study designed, and study area.

2.1 STUDY AREA

This study carried out in Mogadishu, Somalia. It is the capital city of Somalia. Mogadishu
locates in the southern part of Somalia. It borders with Middle Shebelle region in the east and
north, it also borders with Lower Shebelle region in the west and finally, it borders with Indian
Ocean in the south. There are a lot of famous places within Mogadishu including Villa Somalia,
Adan Adde International airport and Mogadishu seaport.

2.2 TARGET POPULATION

During data collection process, the researcher targeted the Government Officials, Ministry of
Information, Ministry of Finance and State Attorney General, Office of Audit General, central
banks, Office of Public Accountant and local government of Somalia. These are the groups that
will represent the target population.

- 15 -
2.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

In this research, I will use probability sampling; this is because the element in the population is
known and nonzero probability of the selection. In my research, I had chosen random sampling
as my sampling method. This method is also led to more efficient statistical estimates. The
respondents were randomly chosen from different sections. The researcher ensured that all of
employees were represented. This is the so that the process of selecting the number of
individuals from the population contains elements representative of the characteristics found in
the entire group (Orodho & Kombo, 2002).

2.4 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

The research instrument that used in this research is questionnaire. The questionnaire contains
of three sections those are section A and section B and section C. In section A contains
demographic questions on basic profile. All the questions are included respondent's gender, age,
Experience and level of education. In section B, the questions grounded on the variables
dependent and independent variable are formed of the study. While section C based
concentrated based on the objective of basic question was assimilated some basic information
of the respondents.
2.5 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE

The following data collection procedure implemented: Data collected from secondary sources.
Secondary data will be obtained through-reviewing related literature such as published books,
magazines, journals and internet sources. Specifically, the researcher seriously particularly will
request the respondents of the following: (1) to sign the informed consent; (2) to answer all
questions hence should not leave any item unanswered; (3) to avoid biases and to be objective
in answering the questionnaires.

2.6 DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis is the process to entering those data collected improperly or coded incorrectly into
the data set. Editing and coding are the two important requirements in the data analysis process.
To analyses the data collected, the SPSS (Statistically Package for Social Science) program had

- 16 -
been chosen to be used in this research. Data analysis is a most difficult part in the quantitative
research. Data analysis of this study is descriptive analysis. The collected data was statistically
analyzed using Microsoft Excel program and the Statistical Program for Social Scientists
(SPSS) and presented in tables and figures to give a clear picture of the findings at glance. Data
analysis of this study is descriptive analysis.

3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Socio-Economics Characteristics of the Respondent Socio-economic characteristics of the

respondent in the study are presented in the tables below.

3.1. Age

From the below Table 1. It is shown that 7.5% of the respondents are less than 20 years of age,
35% of the respondents are between 25 to 35 years, 36% of the respondents are between 35 to
45 years old, 19% of the respondents are between 45-55 years of age, while just 2.5% of the
respondent are between are above 50 years of age. It can be deduced that 35-45 years are more
interested in corruption in public sector compared to other ages because it falls between work
class ages.

Table 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age

S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

1 Age Less than or equal 20 6 7.5%

25-35 28 35%

35-45 29 36%

45-55 15 19%

Above 50 2 2.5%

Total 100%
80

- 17 -
3.2 Education

The respondents have different qualifications regarding their level of education, 15% of the
respondents are secondary graduate, 20% of the respondents have undergraduate diploma,
42.5% of the respondents have a bachelor degree, and 20% of the respondents have a master
degree, while the remaining individuals of 2.5% have obtained PhD. This analysis shows
Analysis shows that most of the respondents have educational qualification of Bachelor degree
(42.5%).

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Educational Qualification

S/n Category Frequency Percent Category

2. Level of Education Secondary 12 15%

Diploma 16 20%

Bachelor 34 42.5%

Master 16 20%

PHD 2 2.5%

Total 80 100%

3.3 Occupation

Table 3: shows the occupation of the respondents.

The occupations vary from civil service to farming, trading, combination of trading and civil
service and others Analysis shows that majority(51%)of the respondent are civil servant, trading
were found to be 10%, for those engaged in farming were 9%, while others were 29.8%. which
indicate that the environment study is a civil state. Most are employed by the state or federal
government

- 18 -
 S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

3 Occupation Farming 8 10%

Trading 10 12.5%

Civil Servant 52 65%

Others 10 12.5%

Total 80 100%

3.4 Corruption Measurement

Table 4: Can corruption be measured?

From Table 5 shows that 65% are of the opinion that corruption can be measured while 28%
have the opinion that corruption can’t be measured. This indicated that people’s opinion are
based on environmental factors.

S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

4 Can corruption be measured Yes 52 65%

No 28 35%

Total 80 100%

3.5 Attitude towards corruption

Table 5: Respondent perception towards Corruption

From Table 6 below, 67.5% of the respondents believe the opinion that corruption is very bad,
17.5% have the opinion that corruption is good while the remaining participants of 15%
believed that corruption is fair. This analysis indicate that majority of the respondent believed
that corruption is too bad.

S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

5 perception towards corruption Too bad 54 67.5%

- 19 -
 Fair 14 17.5%

Good 12 15%

Total 80 100%

3.6 Public perception of corruption

Table 6: Respondent perception towards Corruption

The above table (7) shows that most respondent of 71.2% comprehended that corruption is a
serious crime against public development, 11.2% of the respondents have perception that
corruption is not a crime, 8.8% of the respondents mentioned that corruption is just normal,
while the remaining 8.8% of the respondents don’t have any concept about corruption or they
don’t know whether corruption is a crime or not crime.

S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

6 Public perception corruption Serious Crime 57 71.2%

Not crime 9 11.2%

Normal 7 8.8%

I don’t know 7 8.8%

Total 80 100%

3.7 Most Corrupt Sector

Table 7: Respondent perception towards Corruption

From Table 8 below, the judicial sector is discoursed to be the most corrupt sector with 26.25%
of the respondents, followed by the police which placed most second corrupt sector with
23.75%, 12.5% of the respondents believed that education sector is also corrupted, 7.5% of the
respondents argue that health sector is corrupt, 8.5% of the respondents arise that custom is
corrupted and the and Local government are 15% of the respondents mentions that it’s one of
the most corrupt sector. This analysis indicate that all sectors of government are involve in the
corruption.

- 20 -
 S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

7 Most Corrupt Sector Judicial 21 26.25%

Police 19 23.75%

Education 10 12.5%

Health 6 7.5%

Custom 4 5%

Local government 12 15%

Immigration 8 10%

Total 80 100%

3.8 Causes of Corruption

Table 8: Causes of Corruption
As the above table (8) states, 13.8% of respondents believe that corruption can caused by
Poverty and unemployment, 20% of the respondents arise that lack of Lack of transparency
caused corruption, 22.5% of the participants stated weak judicial system is one of most
component caused corruption, these three factors are the most frequent during the data
collection, 21% respondents realized that corruption also undermined by Poor Salaries, 8.8% of
the respondents argue that corruption caused Lack of social and economic security, 7.5% of the
respondents mentioned that, the of Lack of preventives measures and educational campaigns
caused cottuption, and the remaining 6.2% mentioned Lack of civil awareness of the harm
caused by corruption respectively.

S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

8 factors responsible Poverty and unemployment

11 13.8%
corruption

Lack of transparency 16 20%

Weak judicial system 18 22.5%

- 21 -
 Poor Salaries 17 21.2%

Lack of social and economic security 7 8.8%

Lack of preventives measures and educational

6 7.5%
campaigns

Lack of civil awareness of the harm caused by

5 6.2%
corruption

Total 80 100%

3.9 Restriction corruption

Table 9: Ways of restriction corruption
It could be seen from table (9) that 30% of the respondents agreed that corruption could be
curbed by Raised public awareness on the issue, questioning people’s sources of wealth and
changing negative value system. However, 28.8% agreed that corruption could be decreased by
conducting effective confiscation of illegally acquired property, 22.5% stated that corruption
could be restricted more transparent work of relevant institutions and 15% of the respondent
maintained that corruption could be stemmed by strengthening the criminal justice system and
the remaining 4% argue that corruption could be curbed by Simplifications of procedures.

S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

9 Ways of restriction Strengthening the criminal justice system

12 15%
corruption
Raised public awareness on the issue 24 30%

Effective confiscation of illegally acquired

23 28.8%
property

More transparent work of relevant institutions 18 22.5%

Simplifications of procedures 3 3.8%

Total 80 100%

- 22 -
 3.10 Reporting corruption
Table 10: Ways to report corruptions

Table 10: Indicates that, 52(65.0%) out of the respondents reporting the cases of corruption to
their friends and relatives and also 20(25%) out of the respondents reporting the corruption
cases in the internet particularly social media, also receiving the information of corruption from
friends, relatives and internet. 8(10.0%) of the respondents report the corruption cases to TV,
Newspaper, Radio and other mechanism. The majority of respondents’ ways of reporting is to
report their friends and relatives and the remaining report through internet, particularly social
media.

S/n Category Subgroup Frequency Percent

10 factors responsible TV
3 3.8%
corruption

Newspapers 1 1.2%

Internet 3 3.8%

Radio 2 2.5$

From other people ( Friends, relatives) 52 65%

Social media 17 21.2%

Others 2 2.5%

Total 80 100%

CONCLUSIONS

Corruption is a monster which has continued to exist in our society and has become a common
phenomenon in both public and private settings in the country. The government perceived
corruption as a serious problem which must be stopped. Several factors were observed as being
responsible for the continued existence of corruption in Benadir region and local government
area. These factors must be addressed so that corruption could be stemmed in the area. The

- 23 -
consequences of corruption in the study area are numerous. It can be concluded that there was
lack of common understanding among respondents in perceptions of corruption which were
considered the behavior as corrupt. This. It is apparent that, lack of shared understanding
resulted to the difficulty of fighting corruption. From the result, though the respondents perceive
the behavior as corrupt, they were not ready to report corrupt incidents. Therefore, this implies
that once a behavior is recognized as corrupt it is unlikely to assume that, people will essentially
report corruption incidents. Respondents were also significantly report the matter outside
organization than within their organization. Therefore, this shows that, institutionally fighting
corruption has not yet developed in the society. It seems this might be resulted from lack of
organizational culture in which public servants feel safe to report corruption. The majority of
respondents believed that people who report corruption are likely suffer for it and was not worth
reporting because nothing will be done about it. Therefore, this could be resulted from fear of
retaliation from offenders and if people do not believe effective result from reporting corruption,
there will be less inclined to take any form of action about the conduct.

RECOMMENDATIONS

First, the institutions of government established to fight corruption must be strengthened,

properly funded and must be up to task to be able to withstand the mandate at which they are
created to serve. So the important aspects to combating corruption in Somalia is to move from
a clan-based system to a multi-party system, in order to have one person and one vote, to be
able to elect credible leaders. Therefore, Somali government must build strong institution that
can match the war against corrupt in public offices.

Second, Somalia government and its people must take a reminder from the policy measures of
transparency international on how to struggle corruption. The country’s institutions are
dysfunctional, and there are no integrity mechanisms in place to curb corruption. The
government established the ant-corruption committee, but it’s not functioned so far. Somalia
has signed but not yet ratified or acceded to the African Union Convention on Combatting and
Preventing Corruption. Somalia is not signatory to the UN Convention against Corruption. They
must prioritize better rules on lobbying and political financing make public spending and
contracting more transparent and make public bodies more accountable.

- 24 -
Third, More research and analytical exercise is required to measure the public perception on
corruption in Somalia and to ensure a profounder sympathetic relationship between public view
and corruption. More study, reports and research required to be commenced to improve
comprehend impact public view and continues awareness has in combatting corruption.

Fourth, Precondition is awareness of people, about why corruption constitutes a problem in

society. Civic education and public awareness are the most important instrument to fight
corruption and it should be discovered how anti-corruption committee can be strengthened and
integrated into other disciplines, including human rights education, non-discrimination,
participation, transparency and accountability and also to add the curriculum of university class
and education strategies.

Finally, strengthen the criminal justice system and restricted more transparent work of relevant
institutions could play vital role in the fight against corruption: punishment, Simplifications of
procedures, explored how anti-corruption, the prevalence of corruption, human rights and
interactions between public and government can curbed and decrease the corruption.

REFERENCES
African Union. 2015. African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption.
Ahali, A. and Ackah, I. 2015. Are They Predisposed to the Resources Curse? Oil in Somali.
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2015.
Burke, J. 2017. Ex-Somali PM Heralds 'New Beginning' after Presidential Election Win.
The Guardian.
Hashi, M.J. 2016. The Effect of Bureaucracy on Public Service Delivery in Somalia: Case
Study Banadir Region.
International Crisis Group. 2017a. Managing the Disruptive Aftermath of Somalia’s Worst
Terror Attack.
Legacy Center for Peace and Transparency. 2016. Overview of Corruption, Underlying
Causes, and its Impacts in Somalia.
Onyulo, T. 2017. Somalis Walk for Days Searching for Food and Water While Al-Shabab
Blocks Aid.

- 25 -
Office of the Auditor General. 2017. Audit Authority – Office of the Auditor General,
Somalia.
Pinkowski, B. 2012. The Role of Media in the Fight against Corruption.
US Department of State. 2014. 2014 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
(INCSR).
The World Bank. 2017b. Somalia Security and Justice Public Expenditure Review.
Wadekar, N. and Migiro, K. 2017. UN Warns of Famine Risk in Somalia Amid Worsening
Drought.
Williams, J. 2016. Corruption Swallows a Huge Dose of Water. Inter Press Service.
UN Security Council. 2015. Letter Dated 9 October 2015 from the Chair of the Security
Council Committee Pursuant to Resolutions 751 (1992) and 1907 (2009) Concerning
Somalia and Eritrea Addressed to the President of the Security.
United States Department of State. 2016. International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
Volume II | Money Laundering and Financial Crimes.
Marqaati. 2017a. 2016 State of Accountability in Somalia: Unrestrained Corruption.
Lough, R. and Sheikh, A. 2013. Somalia's Security Forces Hamstrung by Corruption,
Infiltrators.
Diis, A.M. 2016. How Corruption Undermined the Effectiveness of the Somali Federal
Government.
Ahmed, S. 2016. European Union Somalia Gender Analysis Study. Somali Institute for
Development and Research Analysis (SIDRA). Anoba, I. 2017. How Foreign Aid Hurts
Famine Relief in Somalia. Foundation for Economic Education

- 26 -