Corruption in Tanzania: The Case for Circumstantial Evidence By ...

The government of Tanzania’s policy against corruption is zero tolerance.³ However, corruption depends on three factors, which must be understood if the government measures are to be effective. These factors are the overall level of public benefits available, the risk inherent in corrupt deals, and the relative bargaining power of the briber and the person being bribed.⁴

Corruption takes place where there is a meeting of opportunity and inclination.⁵ Therefore, the strategies to contain it should address both elements. Opportunities can be minimised through systematic reforms, and inclinations can be reduced through effective enforcement and deterrent mechanisms. It is necessary that a legal framework be put in place that sends out a clear signal to the effect that, while it is difficult to stop people from revering neighbours with more money and wealth, people who have such money and wealth must be prepared to explain how they got them. For, as one Tanzanian legal scholar—Professor Leonard Shaidi—once pointed out, ‘Corruption is largely the result of a competitive economy which reveres success based almost exclusively on money and accumulation of wealth’.⁶ This being the case, Tanzania needs to have a legal framework in place that provides for effective legal mechanisms that hold such suspects accountable for ill-gotten wealth. One such mechanism is the efficacy of circumstantial evidence as a viable paradigm.

This book focuses on the examination and analysis of circumstantial evidence and makes a case for the view that Tanzania should move away from the traditional school of thought, with its emphasis on ‘direct evidence’ in prosecuting corruption, towards one that favours and accords more weight to ‘indirect evidence’ or ‘circumstantial evidence’.⁷

1.2. Diversity in Corruption Theories

The theories and practice of corruption are based on the causes and effects of corruption. Most scholars and anticorruption reformers have examined the concept of corruption with a view to linking it with its causes and effects.⁸ The general pattern of these theories seems to tilt the balance of emphasis one way or the other based on the background of the scholar or anticorruption reformer.