The inspector general of government, Irene Mulyagonja, wants corruption convicts and those who have used their offices to illicitly acquire assets, to not only suffer imprisonment but also have that property recovered and used for the benefit of the public that suffered that breach of trust.

The IGG said this early this week while opening a five-day financial training for investigators and prosecutors from the Inspectorate of Government, Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA). In her metaphorical expression, the IGG said: “we should bark and bite off a huge chunk of their assets.” Adding that the time is now to hit the criminals where it hurts.

The IGG should be supported by all state agencies interested in fighting corruption. Mere imprisonment is not deterrent enough. It appears many culprits have been stealing with impunity knowing that the worst that can happen to them is a prison sentence, and not loss of property.

Parliament should amend the criminal laws to cater for the confiscation of assets acquired through corrupt means. The Leadership Code Act should also be amended to enable the public to view the declaration of wealth and liabilities by concerned public leaders. And the IGG should not just bite off a chunk, but all that was acquired illegally.

The essence of public offices is that people take oath to serve the public. And the reasonable public expectation is that the officer will not turn this office to his profit, but to exclusively act for the benefit of the general good or public interests.

Therefore, the officer, say in the ministry of health, who diverts public funds meant to procure medicine into their private pockets or decides to construct apartments, should forfeit that property if it is proved that they used public funds to acquire them.

When an officer denies others a service until they part with a bribe, as soon as the bribe is received, whether in cash or kind, it should be construed that the receiver who holds a public office received it on behalf of the public.

Therefore, if the officer uses that bribe to acquire assets, those assets are construed to have been attained on behalf of the public and, therefore, should revert to the injured public.