Introduction: Corruption at a Crossroads

Corruption is not just a governance issue—it is a development crisis. Nowhere is this more evident than in parts of Africa, where corruption continues to erode trust in public institutions, stunt economic growth, and divert critical resources from health, education, and infrastructure. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the continent loses more than $50 billion annually through illicit financial flows, much of it linked to corruption.

Though many African nations have launched anti-corruption campaigns and established dedicated institutions, progress remains uneven. One of the key reasons is the transnational nature of corruption—foreign firms, including multinational corporations, often play a role by offering bribes in exchange for contracts, concessions, or regulatory favors. To counter this, laws like the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) have become essential tools in the global fight against corruption.

The FCPA: A Global Deterrent with African Impact

Enacted in 1977, the FCPA prohibits U.S. individuals and companies from bribing foreign government officials to gain a business advantage. Uniquely, it applies extraterritorially—meaning U.S.-linked companies can be prosecuted for corrupt acts committed anywhere in the world.

In the African context, the FCPA has led to significant penalties for multinational firms operating in sectors notorious for corruption, such as oil, mining, and infrastructure:

• Halliburton/KBR (Nigeria): Paid $579 million in 2009 to settle charges over bribes related to liquefied natural gas contracts.
• Glencore (DR Congo, Nigeria): Fined $1.1 billion in 2022 after admitting to systematic bribery in multiple African countries.
• Technip (Nigeria, Angola): A French engineering firm that paid $338 million in an FCPA settlement for involvement in joint bribery schemes.
• Glencore's Involvement in Cameroon - Recent Developments - In a significant development, Glencore, a Swiss-based commodities trading company, has been implicated in a bribery scandal in Cameroon. Between 2011 and 2016, Glencore admitted to paying over 7 billion CFA francs (approximately $11 million) in bribes to officials of Cameroon’s National Hydrocarbons Corporation (SNH) to secure favorable oil contracts. This admission was part of a broader settlement in which Glencore's UK subsidiary pleaded guilty to seven counts of bribery related to operations in several African countries, including Cameroon.

As a result of these actions, Alex Beard, Glencore's former head of oil, faces charges of conspiracy to make corrupt payments to officials in Cameroon between 2007 and 2014. Beard, along with five other former Glencore employees, are scheduled to stand trial in London in 2027. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has emphasized the significance of addressing overseas corruption and holding perpetrators accountable.

In response to these revelations, Cameroon's National Hydrocarbons Corporation has acknowledged that some of its managers and employees will face a UK court over their involvement in the bribery scheme. This marks a critical step toward accountability and underscores the importance of international cooperation in combating ABC (anti bribery and corruption).

These cases show how the FCPA and other global ABC legislation can fill enforcement gaps where local systems lack capacity or independence. It also acts as a deterrent for firms considering corrupt practices in jurisdictions with weak governance.

The African Challenge: Endemic Corruption and Structural Barriers

Despite numerous efforts to combat it, corruption remains deeply entrenched in many African states. While legal frameworks and anti-corruption campaigns have been introduced across the continent, their effectiveness is often undermined by persistent systemic challenges that hinder meaningful progress.

One of the core issues is institutional weakness. Many anti-corruption agencies lack the funding, training, and independence necessary to operate effectively. In some cases, these institutions are subject to political interference, which compromises their ability to hold powerful individuals accountable and weakens their credibility in the eyes of the public.

Selective enforcement further erodes trust in anti-corruption efforts. Often, crackdowns disproportionately target political opponents while shielding allies of those in power. This perception of bias not only undermines the rule of law but also discourages public cooperation and engagement with anti-corruption initiatives.

Additionally, petty corruption has become normalized in many parts of Africa, particularly in contexts of extreme poverty. Low-level bribery is often seen as a survival mechanism for both citizens seeking access to basic services and civil servants struggling with inadequate salaries. Finally, limited regional cooperation poses another challenge. Corruption and illicit financial flows frequently cross-national borders, yet consistent and coordinated responses across African states remain insufficient, hampering collective efforts to address the problem effectively.

Local reform efforts must address these root causes. However, international legal frameworks—like the FCPA—can serve as powerful external checks on corporate behavior and help reduce the impunity of foreign actors.

Other Key Anti-Corruption Laws: A Growing Global Web

While the FCPA remains the most established and influential anti-bribery law globally, several other jurisdictions have developed complementary legislation:

• UK Bribery Act (2010): Considered one of the world’s toughest anti-corruption laws, it criminalizes both public and private bribery and holds companies liable for failing to prevent bribery. Unlike the FCPA, it covers not only bribes to officials but also commercial bribery.
• French Sapin I & II (2016): These laws introduced mandatory compliance programs for large companies, strengthened investigative powers, and created the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA). Sapin II also allows France to prosecute foreign corruption under French jurisdiction, similar to the FCPA.
• OCEG (Open Compliance and Ethics Group): While not legislation, OCEG provides widely adopted anti-corruption compliance frameworks that support corporate governance and ethics programs, guiding companies in aligning with laws like the FCPA and UK Bribery Act.

Together, these frameworks reflect a global convergence on corporate accountability, but the FCPA continues to be the benchmark—both in enforcement volume and geopolitical influence.

What Happens if the FCPA Is Repealed or Weakened?

Recent (February 2025) political discourse in the United States raised concerns about the future of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Read my post on – 

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henry-n-kiven-48182613_trumps-pause-on-the-fcpa-what-it-means-for-activity-7296619931545096192-_Qj4?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAALKnSEB2VsowSzgtp7X2VOqboUtYx8YPXI .

Suggestions to repeal or relax its provisions sparked alarm globally, particularly in regions where corruption is a persistent challenge. If the FCPA were repealed or significantly weakened, the consequences—especially for Africa—would be both immediate and far-reaching.

First, the deterrent effect that the FCPA currently exerts on multinational corporations would likely collapse. Without the threat of U.S. enforcement, some firms may revert to using bribery and other unethical practices as part of their competitive strategy, particularly in high-risk markets. This would undermine years of progress in promoting clean business operations across the continent.

Second, a weakened FCPA would place a greater burden on local reformers. In many African countries, civil society organizations and principled government officials depend on international frameworks like the FCPA to challenge entrenched corruption. With diminished external pressure, these local actors would lose an important tool in their fight for transparency and accountability.

Third, rather than resolving concerns about competitive disadvantage, repealing the FCPA could trigger a global race to the bottom. Other jurisdictions might follow suit by relaxing their own anti-corruption regulations, eroding international standards and reversing momentum toward ethical business conduct.

Finally, there would be significant geopolitical implications. The United States would lose credibility as a champion of corporate accountability, diminishing its moral authority and weakening its influence in shaping global governance norms. The FCPA has long been a symbol of U.S. leadership in ethical business—its repeal would signal a retreat from that position.

In short, weakening the FCPA would not just affect U.S. businesses; it would undermine global anti-corruption efforts, destabilize reform movements, and compromise the integrity of international markets—particularly in vulnerable regions like Africa.

Instead of repealing the FCPA, what is needed is greater global alignment—encouraging countries without similar laws to adopt them and enhancing cooperation on cross-border investigations.

Conclusion: The Fight Is Global, the Stakes Are Local

Corruption in Africa cannot be tackled in isolation. While internal reform remains essential—empowering local institutions, promoting transparency, and protecting whistleblowers—the global dimension of corruption demands external accountability mechanisms. The U.S. FCPA, alongside laws like the UK Bribery Act and France’s Sapin II, provides such a mechanism.

Rather than retreating from this leadership role, the United States and its allies must reinforce their commitment to global anti-corruption enforcement. Africa’s development, sovereignty, and democratic progress depend in part on whether the international community can maintain—and strengthen—the legal and moral framework that the FCPA helped to build.

NB: On June 9, 2025, the DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche
issued the “the new Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA,”
signaling an early end to the pause. The DOJ’s June 9, 2025 FCPA Guidelines reflect a more focused, risk-based approach to anti-corruption enforcement aligned with the Trump Administration’s priorities: protecting U.S. national security, promoting American competitiveness, and ensuring fairness and efficiency. Companies should consider recalibrating risk assessments, tailoring compliance programs to high-impact areas, and focusing internal investigations on serious misconduct and individual accountability. 

Key actions may include:

• Reassessing risk exposure in DOJ-prioritized areas
• Implementing dynamic, targeted compliance programs
• Prioritizing individual liability in internal reviews
• Documenting collateral consequences and disruptions
• Engaging with DOJ/SEC when appropriate
• Remembering the guidelines are not legally binding