From the Fighting Corruption… to Recycling a System of Public Fund Embezzlement?

Mohamed Abderrahmane Ould Abdallah
Journalist & Writer – Nouakchott

When President Mohamed Ould Cheikh El Ghazouani addressed public opinion declaring, “There is no place among us for anyone who dares to lay a hand on public funds,” it seemed that the state was on the verge of a decisive break with an era marked by the mismanagement of national wealth.
A firm statement, a strong moral tone, and a message that appeared to leave no room for ambiguity. Yet, after years in power, a far more complex — and indeed more contradictory — picture has begun to emerge.
From Slogan to Paradox
It is true that the country has witnessed major trials involving high-profile figures, most notably the prosecution of former President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz and several senior officials. This was widely viewed as an unprecedented development in Mauritania’s political history.
However, the fight against corruption cannot be measured by a single case, regardless of its magnitude. It must be assessed through a permanent and coherent system of accountability. Here lies the paradox: while official discourse raises the ceiling of threats and promises, reality suggests the persistence of a pattern of recycling corrupt officials rather than permanently excluding them from public life.
Recycling Instead of Cleansing
The most dangerous phenomenon is not merely the embezzlement of public funds, but the reproduction of individuals suspected of corruption within the very same system.
Dismissals without prosecution,
Administrative transfers instead of accountability,
Temporary suspensions followed by new appointments,
And official silence swallowing inspection findings.
Accountability thus shifts from a legal principle to a negotiable administrative measure — and the slogan loses its meaning.
Impunity… in Legal Form
Impunity does not always mean the absence of justice. It may manifest through slow judicial procedures, failure to recover stolen assets, undisclosed settlements, or selective prosecution.
When justice is activated in one case and stalled in another, public perception inevitably leans toward viewing anti-corruption efforts as political instruments rather than genuine institutional reform.
A state that declares war on corruption must be willing to bear the cost of confrontation — not manage it through political balancing.
Corruption as a System, Not an Exception
Mauritania’s problem is not merely a “deviant official,” but a fragile administrative environment marked by:
Weak oversight mechanisms,
Lack of transparency in public procurement,
Insufficient monitoring of conflicts of interest,
And a political culture tolerant of influence when protected by power.
In such a context, moral rhetoric without strict enforcement tools becomes little more than a seasonal promise.
A Growing Crisis of Trust
Citizens do not read official statements; they observe outcomes:
Were public funds recovered?
Were implicated officials barred from office?
Were detailed reports made public?
When answers remain unclear, trust erodes. And when trust erodes, the state itself becomes subject to moral questioning.
The Strange Paradox
To promise a fight against corruption while reproducing the same administrative elites suspected — or perceived — to lack integrity is not merely a passing contradiction. It risks becoming a policy that empties political discourse of substance.
The real battle against public fund embezzlement is not fought through declarations, but by permanently closing the door to anyone tainted by suspicion.
Either the principle applies equally to all,
or it becomes nothing more than a slogan for political consumption.
Ultimately, the question remains sharper than ever:
Are we witnessing a genuine reformist will capable of breaking the cycle of money and influence,
or a sophisticated management of crisis that keeps the system alive under the banner of “fighting corruption”?