Understanding the failure to prosecute grand corruption cases through the lens of informality

Aloysious Nnyombi, Coordinator Eastern Africa Agency, Social and Gender Norms Learning Collaborative, Technical Advisor on Social Norms at Impact and Innovations Development Centre and Lecturer, Department of Social Work at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Strong institutions and formal rules are considered a cornerstone in advancing the prosecution of grand corruption cases. Yet, emerging research reveals that high-ranking officials leverage non-state forms of authority, informal structures and networks to evade investigation and prosecution. This blog explores various informal behaviours that senior-level officials use to undermine formal rules and community solidarity against the abuse of entrusted power. It also draws implications for anti-corruption initiatives, highlighting the need to understand how these informal behaviours are reinforced by social norms—the unwritten rules that dictate what is acceptable within a society or group.

Three forms of informal behaviour emerge:

Shaping the media narrative 

The media is often seen as a key factor in shifting high-ranking officials from positions of power to powerlessness [Sigurd & Esther, 2012]. However, in highly corrupt states, the media is also used to manipulate public opinion to protect those in power.

High-level officials frequently seek to control the media narrative. They may secure airtime to deny any misuse of power or, when evidence against them emerges, use media platforms to argue the legality of their actions, citing specific legal provisions. Additionally, officials may offer bribes to media houses or personnel to highlight their past achievements and to divert attention by exposing other corruption scandals, thus confusing and dividing public opinion. 

Gift-giving

Gift-giving is a widespread practice in many societies. However, as Marcel Mauss argued, gifts are never truly free; they come with significant social obligations, primarily the expectation of reciprocity. High-level officials often engage in gift-giving, usually through contributions to social causes such as church, school, or health center fundraising. This practice is sometimes framed as corporate social responsibility, to create an impression that one has greater commitment to societal welfare.

The public often views this practice as "official" and therefore seldom considers the need for reciprocity. Jancsics, 2019 describes this type of gift-giving as a "social bribe"—a corrupt form of gift-giving where the accused uses gifts with the expectation of silencing the community. This is intended to buttress the citizen's pressure on the government to prosecute the officials.

Pursue a political solution

Informally negotiated settlements of grand corruption cases are common but often concealed. Suspected officials typically seek out groups with political power to negotiate immunity from trial. If the officials are willing to further the political interests of these groups, a compromise may be reached. This agreement often leads to prolonged and frustrating investigation and prosecution processes, ultimately resulting in case dismissal and the acquittal of the high-ranking official. To maintain the appearance of a strong anti-corruption stance, the government may prosecute lower-level officials.

Implications for anti-corruption programming

Informal behaviour undermines the public’s ability to effectively advocate for the prosecution of high-level officials by portraying their actions as legally acceptable and their commitment to social causes as genuine. Furthermore, it weakens formal prosecution efforts by offering a political solution to a criminal case.

Anti-corruption legal reforms, such as changes to criminal procedures and the establishment of specialized courts, will be most effective if stakeholders understand how informal dynamics undermine these reforms. Identifying and addressing these informal practices can provide crucial entry points for countering the political systems that weaken formal rules. This approach will help communities better manage media narratives and recognize gift-giving as a form of social bribery designed to stifle accountability.

The informality framework requires further investigation to fully understand how and when the identified informal behaviours are reinforced by social norms. This insight will clarify how these informal behaviors relate to perceptions of what high-level officials do when accused of grand corruption, and what they believe should be done in such situations. Additionally, it is crucial to identify the reference groups [groups of people we model our behaviour to match] that endorse these informal behaviours. Gaining a deeper understanding of how social norms influence informal behaviour will enhance our understanding of why strong institutions and formal rules alone are often insufficient as anti-corruption strategies.