One lesson from Ghana is that an anti-corruption body without sufficient resources, powers to prosecute, and political goodwill is not sufficient to guarantee effectiveness. Another is that there is no proven manual for fighting corruption, though many have been written, including one by the World Bank.

Another is that the supply side of corruption - citizens and businesses offering bribes - plays a crucial role in perpetuating corruption. Yet another lesson is that fighting corruption can be lonely and dangerous. Ask Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission boss Aaron Ringera, who once seemed to think he could slay the dragon single-handedly.

Fighting corruption requires a supportive public opinion. Corrupt politicians are often looked upon as folk heroes, so long as they share their loot with their villagers.

Still another lesson is that the elimination of corruption is inextricably linked to the promotion and protection of human rights. Corruption thrives where there is no transparency and accountability and human rights are routinely abused. That is why it flourished under the Moi regime.

However, the overriding lesson is that there is no magic bullet against corruption. Look at Ghana. It has had a long history of fighting corruption, yet Ghanaians today regularly spend about 10 per cent of their incomes on bribes. Many firms routinely spend as much as 44 per cent of their revenues on bribes.

Since independence in 1957, Ghana has made varied, and in some cases brutal, attempts to weed out corruption. However, no 'best practices' have merged, which we can borrow. Ghana's attempts have apparently failed even after 'house cleaning' exercises - flushing out corrupt officials - in which three former heads of state and five senior military officers were brutally executed.

The country has had 45 commissions of inquiry on corruption. In addition, military take-overs justified their interventions on the need to eradicate corruption. Government officials, members of parliament and businesspersons suspected of corruption were regularly arrested and thrown behind bars.

The country has had a citizens vetting committee, which investigated persons whose lifestyles and expenditures it suspected substantially exceed their income. It has also had a national investigation committee, which probed officials suspected of economic crimes and prosecuted them in tribunals established to dispense speedy justice. In 1980s, it dismissed or retired the most corrupt officials in the National Revenue Service. And in 1992, it established the mother of all anti-corruption bodies, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, complete with constitutional guarantees for its operational independence.

Popularly known as CHRAJ, it combines the powers of an anti-corruption agency, a human rights commission and an ombudsman all rolled into one. I am sure that is what Maina Kiai, chair of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, would like.

It investigates all complaints of corruption, abuse of power, injustice and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his official duties. It has regional and district offices. The constitution requires that all the 110 districts of Ghana should have a CHRAJ office. Nothing is too big or too small for CHRAJ. It takes on anybody, whether it is on a matter of injustice, corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his duties. It has even investigated President John Kufuor.

CHRAJ has made awards, issued declarations, imposed sanctions or obligations, and ordered huge sums of money to be paid back into the government chest.

It is a tribunal, a mediator, an arbitrator, a counsellor, and a public educator. However, it has its limitations. It is restrained in cases where parties refuse to implement its recommendations.

To have its recommendations enforced, it must go to court, and it can only do so through the attorney-general who retains all prosecutorial powers.

CHRAJ is also constrained by limited funds; it can only undertake as many cases as its resources allow. Further, its powers are constrained by the fact that Ghana does not have a freedom of information law (though a bill is pending). Then there is the old question of political goodwill. There is never enough of that. Just like home.