This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from one of Transparency International’s national chapters. The Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union.
Query
Please provide an overview of information disclosure by anti-corruption agencies in Botswana, Canada, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
Summary
Anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) are key in the fight against corruption, and there is strong international consensus that they should operate transparently with regular public reporting. Given that there are several types of ACAs, the content of and procedures for information disclosure differ significantly across jurisdictions. Good practice includes having both proactive and reactive disclosure mechanisms while balancing transparency and confidentiality considerations during investigations.
Contents
- International standards on the transparency of anti-corruption agencies (ACAs)
- State of information disclosure of ACAs in select jurisdictions
- Focus on balancing transparency and confidentiality
- Focus on confidentiality
- Disclosure of data, statistics and processes
- Using sanctions lists
3. References
Main points
- ACAs should operate transparently with public reporting and disclosure as a core part of their mandate.
- Information disclosure can be proactive (open data, publishing key metrics, investigation reports, and so on) or reactive (response to freedom of information requests).
- Examples from Canada, New Zealand and the UK show how ACAs could deal with balancing confidentiality requirements with adequate transparency procedures.
Caveat
The examples in this paper only include illustrative disclosure mechanisms, and the highlighted approaches are not meant to be exhaustive.
Authors
Kaunain Rahman, [email protected]
Reviewers
Anoukh de Soysa, Transparency International
Date
18/03/2022
