Collectively, state and non-state institutions must work together on accountability and transparency strategies in public, private, and non-for-profit institutions, “we cannot work across purposes,” Richard A. Quayson, Deputy Commissioner Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has stated.

“We must all collectively move away from the talk, talk and act on issues of corruption, we must report an incident of corruption from our workplaces,” Quayson stated during engagement at the Ghana News Agency Tema Industrial News Hub Boardroom Dialogue platform.

Speaking on “Is the fight against corruption a mirage or a reality 30 years in the fourth republic,” the Deputy CHRAJ Commission said the commission’s doors were open wide for anybody ‘smelling’ corrupt practices at workplace or any public institution to walk in and report.

“It is only when we all open our eyes wide and other sense against corrupt practices only then can we fight it,” he said.

Quayson explained that “it is time to infuse fearless honesty into the national behaviour and ignite collective sustained action with co-ordinated efforts, as well as the judicious application of resources of stakeholders to combat corruption.”

He said the anti-corruption noose tightening measures which were a roll-over from the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan (NACAP) sought to strengthen public capacity to condemn and fight corruption and make its practice a high-risk, low-gain activity.

The CHRAJ Deputy Commissioner also said the fight hinged on institutionalised efficiency, accountability, and transparency in the public, private and not-for profit sectors; engage individuals, media and civil society organisations in the report and combat of corruption; and conduct effective investigations and prosecution of corrupt conduct.

“Amidst growing perceptions of corruption, the public has become increasingly cynical about the official commitment to effectively tackle the menace. “Confidence in the integrity of public office is fast eroding due to inadequate appreciation of the complex mix of factors implicated in corruption; lack of

public participation in the development and implementation of the anti-corruption measures; and failure to foster local ownership in the formulation and implementation of the various strategies.

“Lack of effective and sustained coordination in the implementation of anti-corruption measures; and lackadaisical government commitment to, and limited support for, the implementation of anti-corruption strategies,” he noted.

Quayson noted that corruption in Ghana was nurtured and influenced by the patrimonial character of the society where informal relations, family connections and social reciprocity are reflected in levels of favouritism, cronyism, and nepotism.

“Social and economic structures in Ghana exhibit a complex interplay between the traditional and the modern,” he observed.

He said cultural factors also played a key role in shaping social and economic structures… “the culture of gift-giving and gift-taking, used in our culture to cement social and economic relationships, is perceived to create conditions for corruption.

“The patronage system also fundamentally influences the formal system and creates contradictions between how institutions are intended to operate in principle and how informal practices supplant formal structures in reality.

“As a result, public administration and political competition often appear to be driven more by personal ties than formal rules”.