14/10/2025
Integrity Vs. Condition of Service: The Sierra Leonean Perspective in the Fight Against Corruption
By Patrick Hinga George, Public Education Officer, Anti-Corruption Commission
Corruption has long been identified as one of the greatest obstacles to Sierra Leone’s development. It weakens institutions, erodes public trust, and denies citizens the benefits of national resources. The fight against this scourge has therefore been central to successive governments, with the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) spearheading reforms and the efforts to address it, through public education, prevention and robust law enforcement; through investigations, invocation of sanctions, and prosecution.
Despite efforts and record gains in recent years especially, one unresolved debate continues to divide opinions: ‘’should corruption be understood primarily as a by-product of poor conditions of service, or is it fundamentally a question of integrity’’?
This debate is not merely academic. It has real implications on how Sierra Leone designs anti-corruption strategies, how government manages public service delivery, and how citizens understand their moral obligations to make the country better by doing what is right and reporting what is wrong at all times.
One school of thoughts argues that the root cause of corruption lies in poor salaries and benefits attached to public service in Sierra Leone. In their view, when a civil or public servant earns wages that cannot cover his basic needs such as rent, food, transportation, medical and education for their children, they become vulnerable and susceptible to corruption. Such conditions create an almost inevitable temptation to seek “alternative” means of survival, often through illicit charges, bribery, misuse of office, among many other desperate attempts.
Consider the case of junior police officers, health workers, or teachers. These are front-line public servants who interact with many citizens daily. When a police officer at a checkpoint is paid less than what he spends on his family’s monthly upkeep, his likelihood of demanding bribes increases.
Similarly, when teachers in rural schools are underpaid and face irregular salaries, some may resort to extorting from parents and pupils, illegal fees. These practices, though illegal, once they get started and entrenched, people irrationally interpret them as survival mechanisms.
Proponents of this assertion therefore insist that harmonizing salaries and improving conditions of service are not just matters of fairness, they are preventive anti-corruption tools. They argue that if public servants were adequately paid, the intents to steal or extort reduce drastically. A well-fed worker, they say, has no reasons to steal. This is reasonably a strong moralistic argument.
Another school of thought presents a different lens. For them, poor conditions of service cannot and should not justify corruption. Integrity, they argue, is the key issue. The ability to do what is right even when no one is watching, and even when one has the opportunity to do otherwise, is not only an innate character to imbibe but a lawful and rightful way to go, they argue.
To back their argument, this school points to an uncomfortable paradox. The largest scandals of corruption in Sierra Leone often involve individuals in top positions of power, those who already enjoy high salaries, allowances, government vehicles, free fuel, medical benefits and enviable privileges. If poor salaries were the cause of corruption, why do highly-placed and well-paid officials engage in corruption? (The grand-corrupts). Why do politicians like Ministers and bureaucrats loot billions of public funds despite living far above poverty?
For this group, corruption is less about conditions of service and more about the erosion of moral values. They argue that without a strong moral compass, no amount of salary will prevent someone from stealing. History is replete with examples of leaders and senior officials whose conditions were excellent but who still abused their offices and positions for personal enrichment. Integrity, they say, is not a product of one’s pay slip; it is a personal choice rooted in discipline, patriotism and moral upbringing.
The Sierra Leonean reality suggests that both arguments carry weight. Poor salaries do expose front-line workers to pressure and temptation into perpetrating corruption, like bribery, extortion, or illegal charges. They do these not because they want only pett-bribes to take care of their needs, but that they don’t have the opportunity to steal huge amounts or demand huge bribes from the public. Integrity remains a crucial missing link, especially when examining grand corruption among those with the best conditions of service.
The danger lies in oversimplifying the debate. If we claim that corruption is purely a product of poverty, we risk excusing unethical behaviour and justifying practices that harm the very citizens we are meant to serve. On the other hand, if we dismiss the role of conditions of service altogether, we risk ignoring the structural pressures that push low-paid workers into compromising positions.
Therefore, the fight against corruption must be two-pronged: addressing systemic conditions while simultaneously cultivating integrity as a core national value.
Looking beyond Sierra Leone, countries that have succeeded in curbing corruption demonstrate that neither salaries nor integrity alone is sufficient. Singapore, for example, is often cited for its relatively high public sector salaries, which were deliberately aligned with private sector standards to discourage corruption. Yet, salary reform was paired with uncompromising enforcement and a culture of accountability. Similarly, in Rwanda, improvements in public service conditions went hand-in-hand with strict monitoring and the promotion of national values of patriotism and discipline.
Government should ensure that disparities in pay are addressed, particularly in the public sector where some institutions enjoy relatively higher salaries than others for similar work. While the state may not be able to match private sector pay, it should at least guarantee a living wage that allows workers to meet basic needs.
Also, integrity must be taught and reinforced as a way of life. Schools, religious institutions, communities and families should emphasize values of honesty and service. Civic education campaigns should make clear that corruption is not just a legal offence but a moral failing that robs the nation of development.
In a move to achieving this, integrity must start from the top. Leaders who live modestly, declare their assets and avoid ostentation inspire confidence and set the tone for accountability.
Conversely, leaders who enrich themselves undermine anti-corruption efforts, no matter how many laws are passed. The ACC must continue to enforce the law impartially, ensuring that both the “petty” and the “grand” corrupt are held accountable. Without consequences, appeals to integrity will remain empty rhetoric.
Society must celebrate and reward honest workers. Recognition schemes, integrity awards and promotions based on ethical conduct can send a powerful message that integrity pays.
The debate between integrity and condition of service in Sierra Leone’s fight against corruption is not a straightforward one. Poor pay does create vulnerability, but lack of integrity makes corruption thrive at all levels. A poorly paid worker with strong values will resist temptation, while a well-paid official without integrity will still plunder state resources. Therefore, Sierra Leone must adopt a balanced approach.
