Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

182 Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia
the nature and extent of corruption and political interference in sector
operations. Although no country completely avoids these two ills (both
treated here as “corruption” writ large), the available information on
expert evaluations and public perceptions shows that countries do differ
markedly concerning the extent of justice sector corruption and the form
it takes.
In developed countries, corruption is less widespread than in many
developing nations and usually takes the form of individual rather than
organized malfeasance. In developing regions, corruption is often
systemic, orchestrated, and frequently linked to political interference
whereby political elites assert control over the sector agencies to influence
decisions and actions; guarantee immunity for themselves and their
allies; and, if less typically, partake of the monetary rewards. The lack, or
weakness, of internal control systems in many of these countries also
encourages higher levels of individual corruption.
This report begins from an agnostic standpoint—attempting only to
document reality in Ethiopia’s justice sector and to compare it, where
possible, with the situation elsewhere in African and other countries
where sector corruption is believed to be rampant.
Methodology
As in the sector studies elsewhere in this volume, research for the justice
sector study examined corruption risks along a value chain, depicting the
usual forms of justice system corruption with information on the
Ethiopian situation derived from informant interviews (including a short
structured questionnaire; focus groups; data analysis; and a review of
relevant documents including studies, some surveys, official publications,
and laws).
The research methodology relied heavily on informant interviews,
covering some 60 individuals in Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar (capital of
the Amhara region) and thus focusing on the federal system and one of
the country’s nine regions. Respondents were drawn nearly equally from
among judges, prosecutors, police, private attorneys, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), donors, and an “other” category comprising specialized
staff and members of other organizations.
The interviewees did not include ordinary citizens with no special
exposure to the sector. However, efforts (not always successful) to get
information about complaints filed with relevant offices were intended
to tap, at least partially, citizen reactions to the justice system. Aside
from those offices’ inability to provide detailed information, reviewers