The figure has risen from about 6 billion rand reported last year, a gain attributed to stronger cooperation between state agencies
South Africa’s Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) has recovered 8.3 billion rand ($519 million) in assets and funds linked to corruption, Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi has said, while calling for those who enable graft to face prosecution.
Speaking at the University of Johannesburg’s Combating Corruption Summit on Wednesday, Kubayi said the AFU’s recoveries had increased from about R6 billion reported at last year’s summit.
“These successes are in part because of AFU strengthened collaboration work with anti-corruption task teams, inter-agency working group on illicit financial flows. These are systems that we’ve worked or we are working on, but also these are some of the work that we are doing in partnership, not only with government but also with private sector,” the minister stressed.
But she made it clear that recovering money could not be the end of the country’s anti-corruption efforts. Kubayi challenged professional bodies, particularly those representing accountants and lawyers, to show what action they had taken against members implicated in corruption.
The warning comes as state agencies intensify efforts to recover money and assets linked to corruption. Kubayi said the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had recovered assets and cash worth R936 million, against a target of R1 billion, over the past year.
”I need to highlight what is important about the work that is being done by SIU. SIU just doesn’t recover, but also, it’s able to stop contracts so that we don’t have to come back and recover,” Kubayi added.
The Tembisa Hospital corruption case is one example of the state’s efforts to recover the proceeds of corruption. The AFU secured a final forfeiture order for about R326 million in assets linked to businessman Hangwani Maumela, including luxury properties and vehicles. The SIU helped trace the assets.
OUTA Chief Executive Officer Wayne Duvenage said the recovery of stolen money was important but should not be mistaken for victory against corruption.
”The recovery of billions of rand is certainly a success and we should acknowledge the work of the SIU, Asset Forfeiture Unit, and other institutions responsible for recovering stolen public money. But recovery cannot be the ultimate measure of success,” Duvenage said.
He added those involved needed to face consequences beyond losing the proceeds of their crimes. Duvenage said major corruption rarely happens in isolation, often involving officials, business people, and professionals who help structure deals, move money or disguise corrupt transactions.
“If those enablers believe that the worst that will happen is that some of the money may eventually be recovered, while they remain free to continue doing business, then the system isn’t creating sufficient deterrence,” he said.
Accountability Now Director Paul Hoffman SC believes the problem is even more fundamental, arguing that South Africa lacks an anti-corruption institution sufficiently independent from the executive.
”The problem at the moment is that South Africa does not have the necessary machinery of state to deal with corruption effectively and efficiently,” Hoffman noted. He also called for legislation creating an independent, stand-alone body to deal with corruption outside Cabinet control, arguing that the Hawks and National Prosecuting Authority remain under political executive structures.
The question of what constitutes real accountability was taken further by AfriForum Private Prosecution Unit head Advocate Gerrie Nel, who was speaking at the three-day summit on Thursday. Nel said South Africa’s failure to act against corruption was partly rooted in what he described as a “willful disregard” of the accepted definition of corruption.
”Nothing is happening if there’s an arrest. Absolutely nothing. It only happens when there’s a prosecution and a conviction. Then something is happening,” Nel said. He added that the failure to prosecute was particularly concerning when politically connected individuals were involved and questioned why there were no consequences for prosecutors responsible for decisions not to prosecute.
