Pardon me? Presidential clemency and impunity for grand corruption

Pardon me? Presidential clemency and impunity for grand corruption

Recent events in Brazil and Peru have shone a spotlight on the issue of presidential pardons in cases of grand corruption.

On 24 December 2017, President Kuczynski of Peru pardoned the country’s former ruler Alberto Fujimori, 79, who had served eight years of a 25-year prison sentence for charges of corruption and human rights violations committed during his ten-year rule in the 1990s.

The move is widely considered to be linked to Kuczynski’s own efforts to avoid impeachment over his connections to Odebrecht, a Brazilian corporate giant at the heart of the corruption scandal that has continued to reverberate across Latin America and beyond, since first breaking in 2015.

Days earlier, politicians loyal to Fujimori had . 

Meanwhile in Brazil, President Michael Temer on December 21 that expanded the scope of the traditional Christmas pardon for non-violent prisoners who have served part of their sentence. If future decrees follow the same rules, criminals convicted in the Lava Jato bribery trials could be pardoned as early as next year.

Previous presidential clemency decrees in Brazil have also benefited corrupt individuals. Many of those convicted for their involvement in the 2005 have benefitted from pardons since 2012.

Pardons are not and cannot become an instrument of impunity.

Justice Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha Head Supreme Court of Brazil

Brazil’s justice ministry that this year’s decree was a traditional humanitarian gesture and not an attempt to limit anti-corruption efforts. But prosecutors in the Lava Jato case disagreed, and Brazil’s Supreme Court stepped in to suspend the controversial parts of the decree.

José Ugaz, the former chair of Transparency International who prosecuted Fujimori in Peru, recently wrote in an that pardons should only be used in cases of grand corruption under extraordinary circumstances, saying “exceptional forgiveness cannot be used to encourage grand corruption and impunity.”

 Cármen Lúcia  Antunes Rocha, the head of Brazil’s Supreme Court , “Pardons are not and cannot become an instrument of impunity.” 

Transparency International agrees. Governments must not allow impunity to be consolidated through judicial clemency. 

So what are the best practices that legislators can use to ensure that pardons are not abused for political purposes, either to take the teeth out of anti-corruption prosecutions, or simply let the corrupt off the hook for their crimes?

In November 2017, the Transparency International Research Helpdesk looked into the issue of .

While recognising that pardons are an important part of many countries’ legal systems and can provide a check on judicial power or correct systemic issues in the justice system, our research found that they may be open to abuse. 

A number of countries have introduced reforms and restrictions on pardons in order to limit the risk of corruption. Some aim to increase the number of actors that participate in clemency decisions; others aim to limit the power to issue pardons; while some reforms aim to add transparency and accountability to existing systems.

Examples of good practice include:

Clemency boards. Some countries, and some states in the USA, employ clemency boards to provide additional consultation or approval of clemency decisions. If used, these should be independent from the government, and should have enough technical and resource capacity to be able to undertake their task properly.

Multi-branch reviews. Sharing information – and accountability – across parliament, the judiciary and the executive branch can reduce the scope for abuses and unpopular decisions.  
Transparency. Simply publishing official justifications for clemency decisions can increase accountability.

Limits. Powers to grant pardons can be limited when other accountability measures don’t apply. Kenya, for example, prohibits the issuing of pardons and clemency during officials’ final days in office, or if they cannot stand for re-election. Liberia, Tonga and Malawi explicitly prohibit pardons for charges such as corruption, impeachment or abuse of office.

Citizen participation. This can be incorporated into clemency processes to provide more accountability, but also presents a challenge: how to avoid pardons from becoming an electoral tool in which they are promised in exchange for votes? One practice, adopted by the US state of Utah, establishes that any pardon must go through a three-stage process: first it is published, then the state congress is informed, then public hearings are held to outline the justifications for granting the pardon. 

In February, Brazil’s Supreme Court will decide whether to permanently block Temer’s decree.

Add your voice to our message to the court: Judicial pardons must not grant impunity to the corrupt!

[email protected]_oficial Indulto natalino no #Brasil nao deve gerar impunidade em crimes de #corrupção! #ImpunidadeNão @anticorruption Tweet This [email protected]_oficial Judicial pardons in #Brazil must not grant impunity for #corruption! #NoImpunity @anticorruption Tweet This

Image: Creative Commons, Flickr/PMDB Nacional

For any press enquiries please contact [email protected]

Solicitude

Support Transparency International

A redefining moment for Africa

The newly released Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) provides a good baseline for the African Union (AU) anti-corruption efforts in 2018. This year’s theme for the AU is “Winning the Fight against Corruption: A Sustainable Path to Africa’s Transformation.” As the AU rolls out its plan, this is an important moment for Africa to take stock of the current situation.

Perceptions remain unchanged despite progress in the Americas

In the last few years, Latin America and the Carribbean made great strides in the fight against corruption. Laws and mechanisms exist to curb corruption, while legal investigations are advancing and citizen anti-corruption movements are growing in many countries across the region. However, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2017, the region continues to score poorly for corruption. How can we explain this contradiction?

Slow, Imperfect Progress across Asia Pacific

While no country in the Asia Pacific region scores a perfect 100, not even New Zealand or Singapore, which both experienced their share of scandals in the last year, our analysis reveals little progress across the region.

Europe and Central Asia: more civil engagement needed

In 2017, authoritarianism rose across Eastern and South East Europe, hindering anti-corruption efforts and threatening civil liberties. Across the region, civil society organisations and independent media experienced challenges in their ability to monitor and criticise decision-makers

Rampant Corruption in Arab States

In a region stricken by violent conflicts and dictatorships, corruption remains endemic in the Arab states while assaults on freedom of expression, press freedoms and civil society continue to escalate.

Digging deeper into corruption, violence against journalists and active civil society

To mark the release of the Corruption Perceptions Index 2017, we analysed corruption levels around the world and looked at how they relate to civil liberties – specifically, the ability of citizens to speak out in defence of their interests and the wider public good.

Corruption Perceptions Index 2017

This year’s Corruption Perceptions Index highlights that the majority of countries are making little or no progress in ending corruption, while journalists and activists in corrupt countries risk their lives every day in an effort to speak out.

Why rather

Follow us on Why rather

Would you like to know more?

Sign up to stay informed about corruption news and our work around the world