By Ismail A. A
“A corruption conviction without publicly accessible details risks becoming little more than a number”
The announcement by the Office of the Auditor General of Somaliland that the Marodi Jeh Regional Court has convicted eight defendants in a case involving corruption, embezzlement and misuse of public assets raises a fundamental question that deserves a clear and public answer:
Who are the eight individuals, what positions did they hold, which institutions were they associated with, what public assets were involved, and what did the court actually establish?
The announcement may represent an important step in the fight against corruption and the protection of public resources. Yet the limited information made available to the public has created a significant information gap—one that risks fuelling speculation rather than confidence.
According to the statement issued by the Office of the Auditor General, the eight defendants were prosecuted following a case submitted by the Auditor General’s Office to the Regional Prosecution Office. However, the announcement did not identify the individuals, their positions, the institutions involved, the public assets or funds at issue, the findings of the court, or the sentences imposed on each defendant.
This raises an uncomfortable question: Can a corruption conviction be meaningfully presented to the public without presenting the substance behind it?
TRANSPARENCY MUST GO BEYOND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A government’s commitment to combating corruption cannot be measured solely by the number of investigations, prosecutions or convictions it announces. It must also be measured by the transparency with which those cases are communicated.
Public resources belong to the people. When individuals entrusted with public responsibilities are convicted of misusing those resources, citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding what happened.
That does not mean compromising due process, judicial independence or the rights of defendants. Nor should allegations be presented as established facts before a court has ruled.
But where a competent court has issued a conviction, the public interest in understanding the judgment becomes substantial.
Simply announcing that “eight individuals have been convicted” leaves several essential questions unanswered.
- Who were they?
- What responsibilities did they hold?
- Which public institution entrusted them with those responsibilities?
- What funds or assets were involved?
- How much was at stake?
- What did the court establish?
- And what sentences were imposed?
These are not merely questions of curiosity. They are questions of public accountability.
THE MEANING OF “WARAABE-U-TAAG”
There is a Somali expression that aptly captures the concern surrounding an announcement of this nature: “Waraabe-u-taag.”
In this context, the expression conveys the idea of something being declared or asserted without the underlying evidence, substance or details being adequately displayed.
That is precisely the concern that should be addressed here.
The issue is not whether the authorities should announce corruption convictions. They should.
The issue is whether such announcements should stop at the headline—or whether they should provide the public with sufficient information to understand the facts behind the headline.
A corruption conviction without publicly accessible details risks becoming little more than a number.
Eight convictions. But eight convictions of whom? For what? Involving how much? And based on what findings?
Those questions deserve answers.
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE DEPENDS ON INFORMATION
The absence of detailed information can unintentionally create an environment in which speculation travels faster than verified facts.
Social media platforms have become increasingly influential in shaping public perceptions of corruption and government accountability. In such an environment, official institutions have a heightened responsibility to provide accurate, timely and verifiable information.
When authorities release only partial information, the resulting vacuum can quickly be filled by rumours, political accusations and unverified claims.
The most effective response is not to silence public debate. It is to provide authoritative information that enables citizens and journalists to distinguish between fact, allegation and speculation.
Transparency therefore protects institutions as much as it serves the public.
WHAT SHOULD THE PUBLIC BE TOLD?
At a minimum, the relevant authorities should consider publishing a comprehensive summary of the case, subject to applicable law and legitimate privacy or judicial restrictions.
Such information should include:
- The names of those convicted, where legally permissible;
- Their positions and the institutions in which they served;
- The specific offences for which each person was convicted;
- The public funds, property or other assets involved;
- The amount or estimated value of any loss to the state;
- The material findings established by the court;
- The sentence imposed on each convicted person; and
- Whether any funds or public assets have been recovered.
Such disclosure would allow citizens to understand the scale and significance of the case rather than simply being presented with the headline that eight people have been convicted.
THE ROLE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Office of the Auditor General has a critical role in safeguarding public resources and promoting financial accountability.
Its efforts to investigate suspected financial misconduct and refer cases to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities should be welcomed when carried out independently and in accordance with the law.
But accountability does not end with an investigation. Nor does it end with a referral to prosecutors. And it should not end with a court judgment being announced without sufficient public explanation.
An effective anti-corruption framework should operate as a chain:
Investigation → Prosecution → Judicial Determination → Asset Recovery, Where Applicable → Public Reporting.
If the final link remains weak, the public may struggle to understand whether justice has actually translated into accountability.
TRANSPARENCY AND DUE PROCESS ARE NOT OPPOSITES
There is, of course, a legitimate need to protect due process and the rights of individuals involved in criminal proceedings.
Before conviction, every defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence and the protections guaranteed by law.
But once a court has convicted an individual, there is also a legitimate public interest in understanding the judgment—particularly when the case concerns public officials and public resources.
The answer is not sensationalism. It is accurate, evidence-based and legally grounded disclosure. The public does not need rumours. It needs facts.
A TEST OF INSTITUTIONAL CREDIBILITY
The case involving the eight convicted individuals presents Somaliland’s institutions with an opportunity to demonstrate that the fight against corruption is genuine, impartial and institutionally grounded.
- If public officials were found guilty of misusing public resources, the public should be able to understand what occurred.
- If the case concerned specific transactions, those transactions should be identified where legally permissible.
- If public funds were lost, the amount should be disclosed.
- If funds or assets have been recovered, that should be reported.
- If recovery efforts are ongoing, the public should be informed.
- And if the court imposed different sentences on different defendants, those distinctions should be clearly explained.
A credible anti-corruption campaign should not fear facts. Indeed, facts are what give an anti-corruption campaign credibility.
THE PUBLIC DESERVES MORE THAN A NUMBER
The announcement of eight convictions may be significant. But the number itself tells the public very little.
Eight people could represent a relatively minor administrative case—or a major episode involving substantial public resources.
Without names, positions, institutions, financial figures and judicial findings, citizens cannot properly assess the significance of the case.
This is why the authorities should consider going beyond the announcement and providing the public with the substance behind it.
The public is not merely asking for names. It is asking for facts, evidence, accountability and transparency.
Ultimately, the credibility of any government’s anti-corruption agenda is measured not by how frequently it announces that corruption is being fought, but by how openly it demonstrates what happened when corruption was uncovered.
A conviction is an important outcome of the justice process. But for the public to trust that process, it must also be able to understand what was proven, who was responsible, what public resources were affected, and what justice ultimately delivered.
The people deserve to know.
And where the facts have been established through due process, transparency should not be a threat to public institutions—it should be the foundation of their credibility.
