Now that the law has been adopted and the institutional bodies created by this law are in place, it’s
time to deal with the most important criticism that has been expressed by the political opposition
and segments of the civil society: the critical issue of the independence of those in charge to fight
corruption from political or economical interferences.
But first of all, it must be recalled that the leaders of this country share a strong political will to fight
corruption. Why ? Because they want Cambodia leaving the poor status of least developed country.
The future is at stake and now that the country enjoys full peace and political stability, nothing is
more important than to increase the wealth for all the people. And such a goal requests significant
new steps on the way to development and modernity. The Royal Government of Cambodia perfectly
knows that graft is the most important brake on development and a direct threat to the rule of law.
The leaders are not proud when they read the World Economic Forum report on trade
competitiveness explaining that Cambodia reaches “one of the highest levels of corruption in the
world”. They are not proud when it comes to their knowledge that the Hong Kong based firm Political
and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd, after questioning 2.147 company directors from 16 countries of
the Asia‐Pacific zone, ranks Cambodia as the second most corrupted country in this zone. There is a
need for dramatic changes. And the political will is there : both corrupters and corrupt people must
be punished.
A significant progress has been achieved with the adoption of the anticorruption law. It came at the
right time after the adoption of four extremely important legal codes : the penal and the civil codes
and the procedural codes for both. Cambodia is on her way to rebuild a comprehensive judicial
system.
The establishment of the National Council for Anti‐corruption (NCA) and the establishment of the
Anti‐corruption Unit give the opportunity to deal with the concern about the independence of these
two institutions. No doubt that effectiveness and efficiency of the Anti‐corruption body require that
the people in charge are truly independent.
The Government made an important choice. It refused the appointment of all the eleven members of
the NCA by the Executive. As everyone knows, in several democratic countries, it’s the Executive that
appoints members of extremely important institutions like, for instance, the US Supreme Court. The
Cambodian law stipulates that the members of the NCA are appointed by various institutions: the
King, the National Assembly, the Council of Magistracy, etc. This is another process that many
democratic countries share also.
Nevertheless, this process was criticized in Cambodia. It was said that most of the institutions
involved in the appointment of the members of the NCA are ruled by individuals affiliated with the
same political party, the CPP. Therefore, the independence of the NCA would be under threat. One
must remind the readers that this process is common in countries recognized as democratic where
there is no coalition government or when the partner in the coalition is too weak and unable to
negotiate a balanced power sharing. That’s the result of the will expressed by the people through theelection. That’s also the result of the ability of political parties to build a credible political reputation
and strength.
This situation drives us back to the core question : how to provide the strongest guarantees for such
independence ? There are people who think that the best way is the appointment of individuals with
no political affiliation or economical link. But how is it possible to be sure that someone, because he
has no connection with a political party or with a business group, will be protected from pressures ?
It is the same with the judiciary. If we would follow people who say “the judges are paid by the
Government, so they have to obey the Government”, it would mean that the independence of the
magistrates is impossible. It would mean that the separation of powers is just a joke. According to
the law, the Anti‐corruption Body is an institution with judicial powers. The need for independence is
the same.
How to get such independence ? Is there another guarantee than the oath each member of the Anti‐
corruption Body took when he was appointed ? At the core of the independence is the integrity and
professionalism of the person in charge and his or her will to implement the law. Suspicion finds
ground more in human usual behaviors than in any affiliation. Experts in the independence of the
Judiciary use to repeat that the absolute guarantee doesn’t exist. Neither in Cambodia, nor in
Western countries.
It’s by far too early to make an assessment of the implementation of the anti‐corruption law. That’s
why we should give this new law a chance.
Dr Raoul Marc Jennar
Advisor to the RGC
