Whistleblowing Mechanism Within The Context Of Public Sector Reform

A necessary ingredient in achieving good corporate governance.

It is encouraging to read “Whistleblower bill passed” (Ref: Thursday, 27 July 2006, issue of the www.ghanaweb.com).

Like “Risk” no entity, be it public or private, will succeed to completely eradicate “Corruption” but with the proper and workable corporate governance principles and practices underpinned by sound leadership and management both “Cankers” may be mitigated to some degree of tolerance and acceptance.

A couple of yeas ago, the Government promulgated Internal Audit Agency Act, Public Procurement Act, Financial Administration Act and related governance policies to enhance the efficacy of the current Public Sector Reform Program. As readers will be aware or are already aware it is all well and good to have well-thought through and well-structured policies it is the implementation of such policies that determines their effectiveness within the entity and impact on the society or otherwise. Apparently, in the execution of the above-cited Acts and corresponding practices, “Whistleblowing” within the respective government agencies will play a significant and positive role (overseeing and reporting corrupt, immoral, illegal practices and related reportable conduct) if applied judiciously and without malice and prejudice.

In line with sound governance practices, there should be commitment to effective reporting of corrupt and illegal practices, and all behaviour that is contrary to the Code of Conduct, by people at all levels within an entity, starting with the board of governing body, the chief executive officer (CEO) and senior management.

According to the literature there is no globally accepted definition of ‘whistleblowing’. Rather, there are a number of different definitions and descriptions which try to distinguish whistleblowing from other forms of disclosure, such as informing or spying. In a report prepared by a Senate Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing, Canberra, Australia, 1994, a commonly accepted definition specifies that ‘whistleblowing’ is: “The disclosure by organisation members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers to persons that may be able to effect action”.

As indicated above the main objective of devising and implementing the above-mentioned Acts is to have an efficient and effective Public Service whose outcomes will positively impact on the society by translating the government’s policies in a transparent and accountable fashion. And do we have ‘squeaky clean’ practitioners with self-governance attributes (integrity, commitment and leadership skills) within our Public Service to achieve these goals ‘with no financial loss to the state’? I am confident readers will agree with me that the answer is emphatically ‘NO’. Notwithstanding we have public servants with excellent attributes, who may be ready to assume the role of ‘Whistleblower’. But our society is such that in their attempt to do the right thing for the country these ‘whistleblowers’ will be labelled as being ‘disloyal’ by the concept of ‘friendship/mateship’ which will in turn be identified as an additional layer of discouragement hindering the development of a robust whistleblower culture. In setting up a whistleblower program, an element of confidentiality is very essential. A whistleblower who reports or seeks to report reportable conduct should be given a guarantee of anonymity (if anonymity is desired by the whistleblower) bearing in mind, that in certain circumstances, the law may require disclosure of the identity of the whistleblower in legal proceedings.

And where as a result of whistleblowing, the culprit is found to be a senior officer and the whistleblower is a junior officer the latter is then subjected to all kinds of reprisals: dismissal, demotion, discrimination, harassment, intimidation, victimisation, current and future bias etc thereafter. This is where there will be a need for whistleblowers to be protected from reprisals via a robust whistle blowing legislation.

At this juncture, it is worth noting that where it is shown that a person purporting to be a whistleblower has made a false report of reportable conduct, then that conduct itself should be considered a serious matter and render the person concerned subject to disciplinary proceedings as provided for by the entity’s internal policies and procedures.

In some jurisdictions (in addition to protection) and by way of incentives, whistleblowers receive a percentage of the recovered illegally obtained financial advantages, which is distinct from providing financial inducements and is a highly effective tool to encourage whistleblowing.

Certainly, more effective whistleblower protection measures need to be implemented at the national and regional levels. However, this may not be enough. A very important key to effective whistleblowing is the realisation that whistleblowing is not betrayal nor disloyalty but a service to society.