Summary: The Chief Executive Officer of the Spoon Network recently claimed on “Spoon Talk” that the government of former President George Weah was the most corrupt government in the history of Africa. We have verified his assertion to be misleading.
Stanton Witherspoon, the main moderator of Spoon Talk, claimed on September 6 during a live show that the government of former Liberian President George Weah was the most corrupt in the history of Africa.
Mr. Witherspoon made this assertion (at 3:11:38 of the over four hours video) while discussing the findings of a recent audit report of the Government of Liberia’s consolidated account at the Central Bank of Liberia by the General Auditing Commission.
This claim is important to fact-check because it is a trending topic regarding accountability, corruption, and good governance in Liberia.
The Claim
An excerpt of Mr. Witherspoon’s statement reads: “… We agreed that (Weah Administration) was the most corrupt government in the history of Africa… Until we (the Liberian government) can step up to prosecute them and prosecute swiftly, people will continue to laugh at us”.
Listen to the claim here:
Rating Justification
First, we define corruption based on Transparency International. The organization defines corruption as the “abuse of entrusted power for private gains”.
To verify this claim, we contacted Mr. Witherspoon via WhatsApp, requesting the data he used to support his statement. In his reply, he asked us to provide the specific portion of the recording where the claim was made, which we did.
However, after reviewing the recording, he did not offer further comments nor provide citations or references despite our follow-up reminder.
We then examined various reports from Transparency International, a global organization working in over 100 countries to combat corruption.
Our focus was on the reports concerning corruption in Africa from 2018 to 2023, covering the period of former President Weah’s administration.
According to the 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) by Transparency International, Liberia was ranked 120th out of 180 countries, with a CPI score of 32. The CPI uses a scale from 100 to 0 making 100 as the “most clean government while 0 is ranked the most corrupt.
The CPI ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, based on assessments by experts and businesspeople, using a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 signifies high corruption and 100 indicates very low corruption.
In 2018, Somalia was considered the most corrupt country, with a CPI score of 10, followed by South Sudan and Sudan, with scores of 13 and 16, respectively.
According to the CPI’s 2019 ranking, Liberia dropped four points from 32 to 28 and ranked 137 out of 180 countries, maintaining the same CPI score and rank as in 2020.
Meanwhile, Liberia made progress in 2021, scoring 29 on the CPI scorecard with a ranking of 136 amongst the 180 countries.
In 2022, Liberia could not maintain this progress, dropping from 29 to 26 with a ranking of 142.
Liberia declined again in 2023 by one point from 26 to 25 with a ranking of 145.
This means Liberia declined by seven points from 32 in 2018 to 25 in 2023, according, to the Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia – CENTAL.
Countries like Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Equatorial Guinea were consistently ranked among the most corrupt in the region.
The 2023 CPI report by Transparency International again ranked Somalia, South Sudan, and Equatorial Guinea as having the most corrupt governments in Africa, with Somalia recording the lowest CPI score, indicating the highest level of perceived corruption.
On the other hand, Seychelles emerged as the highest performer in the region, with a CPI score of 71, followed by Cabo Verde (64) and Botswana (59).
Conclusion
While Liberia’s CPI scores declined by seven points from 32 in 2018 to 25 in 2023 on corruption during the period, the country was not ranked the most corrupt nation in Africa. Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Equatorial Guinea consistently occupied those positions.
This report is produced with funding from the USAID Media Activity. The funder has No say in the editorial decisions leading to the production of this content