Chapter three: Democracy and good political governance • Strengthen and fully implement the objectives of the PSIRP. (Government of Lesotho, international cooperating partners) • Review the process of appointment of principal secretaries. (Government of Lesotho, international cooperating partners) • Develop an effective public communication and information dissemination strategy. (Government of Lesotho, international cooperating partners) • Firmly enforce compliance with financial rules, regulations and procedures. (Government of Lesotho, international cooperating partners) Objective 6: Fight corruption in the political sphere i. Summary of the CSAR 265. The CSAR subscribes to Transparency International’s definition of public corruption as involving behaviour on the part of officials in the public sector, whether politicians or civil servants, in which they improperly and unlawfully enrich themselves, or those close to them, by the misuse of the public power entrusted to them. Informed by this definition, and on the basis of interviews with experts, public surveys and media reports, the CSAR concludes that corruption is endemic, widespread and on the increase. 266. The CSAR attributes this situation to the fact that, during most of Lesotho’s postindependence history, the principles of public accountability have been flouted. No accountability within the organs of governance was enforced during the 23 years of undemocratic rule prior to 1993. Since then, the situation has barely improved. Government institutions’ annual reports are irregular and, when prepared, are so full of discrepancies that the auditor general submits them to Parliament with qualification. There were no audited annual reports for 1996 to 2001 and for 2004 to 2007. Moreover, the reports for 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003 had discrepancies. In addition to the history of discounted public accountability, the CSAR also blames personal greed and loose financial accounting systems for the glaring corruption within the public service. 267. The government of Lesotho has instituted legal and institutional measures to fight corruption. There is the Prevention of Corruption and Economic Offences (PCEO) Act of 1999, which established the DCEO in 2003. The DCEO is mandated by the Act to investigate and prosecute public officers suspected of committing economic offences and corruption. 268. The CSAR cites two other institutions with responsibilities for ensuring accountability in the public sphere: the OAG and the PAC of Parliament. The OAG audits the accounts of government institutions and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), while the PAC examines public accounts, including the review of the reports of the OAG. As a result of inadequate statutory powers, the roles of the DCEO and OAG have had minimal impact on the fight against corruption. The DCEO lacks adequate resources (human, technological, financial and infrastructural) to deal effectively with cases of corruption, and it lacks autonomy, since it is merely a unit within the Ministry of 79