Beyond accountability: Lessons from The Gambia’s commissions of inquiry on financial governance and institutional integrity

Understanding why governance failures occur Part 2

By Omar F M’Bai

One of the most important lessons emerging from commissions of inquiry around the world is that governance failures rarely occur without warning.

Institutional collapse is seldom the consequence of a single decision, one unethical individual or one isolated act of misconduct. More often, it is the culmination of weaknesses that have been tolerated, ignored or rationalised over many years until they eventually converge into systemic failure.

For this reason, the most effective governance professionals rarely ask, “Who is responsible?” as their first question.

They ask, “What allowed this to happen?”

That distinction is profound.

The first question seeks accountability.

The second seeks institutional improvement.

Mature institutions pursue both.

Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of high-performing governance systems is their ability to distinguish between individual misconduct and institutional weakness. Individuals must always remain accountable for their actions. Equally, however, institutions must honestly examine whether their governance architecture created an environment in which misconduct could occur undetected, unchallenged or unchecked.

This distinction is often overlooked.

Financial misconduct is usually the visible symptom.

Governance failure is frequently the underlying disease.

Removing the symptom without addressing the underlying institutional weaknesses merely postpones the next crisis.

Consequently, every Commission of Inquiry should prompt not only an examination of individual conduct but also a rigorous assessment of the governance systems, internal controls, oversight structures and organisational culture that either prevented, or failed to prevent, the conduct under investigation.

This philosophy is reflected in internationally recognised governance frameworks. The Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission Internal Control Framework, for example, emphasises that effective governance depends upon a strong control environment, comprehensive risk assessment, effective control activities, reliable information systems and continuous monitoring. Weakness in any one of these pillars increases institutional vulnerability.

Similarly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Principles of Corporate Governance consistently emphasise accountability, transparency, responsible leadership and effective oversight as the foundations of resilient institutions.

These principles apply with equal force to governments, regulators, state-owned enterprises, private corporations, educational institutions and financial institutions alike.

Across jurisdictions and across sectors, the warning signs preceding governance failures are remarkably consistent.

Weak internal controls.

Poor record management.

Inadequate segregation of duties.

Concentration of decision-making authority.

Conflicts of interest that remain unmanaged.

Ineffective oversight by governing boards.

Insufficient transparency.

Failure to question unusual transactions.

A culture that discourages constructive challenge.

An environment in which professional advice is ignored because it is inconvenient.

Viewed individually, these weaknesses may appear manageable.

Collectively, they become dangerous.

History repeatedly demonstrates that institutions seldom fail because of one catastrophic decision. They fail because relatively small governance weaknesses accumulate gradually until the institution’s capacity to detect, prevent and correct error is fundamentally compromised.

The collapse of Enron remains one of the most powerful illustrations of this principle. For many years, the company was celebrated internationally for innovation, rapid growth and financial success. Yet beneath that impressive public image lay serious weaknesses in governance, ineffective board oversight, compromised independence, conflicts of interest and failures of professional scepticism. The eventual collapse destroyed billions of dollars in shareholder value, eliminated thousands of jobs and fundamentally reshaped global corporate governance through stronger regulatory reforms.

Likewise, the Global Financial Crisis exposed governance deficiencies across some of the world’s most sophisticated financial institutions. Investigations consistently revealed that many institutions did not fail because of a lack of technical expertise. Rather, they failed because governance systems proved incapable of controlling excessive risk-taking, challenging flawed assumptions and maintaining effective oversight over increasingly complex financial activities.

The lesson from both experiences is unmistakable.

Financial crises are almost always governance crises before they become accounting crises.

By the time financial losses become visible, governance weaknesses have often existed for many years.

This observation carries an important implication for The Gambia and indeed every nation seeking to strengthen its institutions.

Governance should never be viewed primarily as a mechanism for investigating failure after it has occurred.

Its highest purpose is prevention.

Good governance is therefore fundamentally preventive rather than punitive.

Commissions of Inquiry investigate events that have already occurred.

Governance seeks to ensure that those events need never occur again.

The distinction is critical.

A nation may establish numerous commissions of inquiry.

Yet if each commission simply attributes blame without producing lasting institutional reform, future commissions become increasingly inevitable.

Conversely, where inquiry findings lead to stronger institutions, better internal controls, enhanced oversight, improved transparency and more ethical leadership, each commission becomes an investment in national resilience rather than merely an exercise in retrospective accountability.

This is why governance should never be perceived as an obstacle to effective leadership.

Nor should internal controls be viewed as expressions of distrust.

They are expressions of prudence.

They exist not because institutions assume dishonesty, but because they recognise human fallibility.

As the French political philosopher Montesquieu said centuries ago, liberty and good government depend upon the proper distribution and restraint of power. Although articulated in the context of constitutional government, the principle remains equally applicable to modern institutional governance. Wherever authority becomes concentrated without effective oversight, accountability inevitably weakens.

Similarly, the celebrated observation of Lord Acton that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” continues to resonate because it reflects a timeless governance reality. Institutions should never depend exclusively upon the integrity of individuals, however capable or well intentioned they may be. They should instead be designed so that integrity is reinforced by robust systems of accountability, transparency and independent oversight.

Strong governance therefore does not assume that people will always make the right decisions.

It assumes that they are human.

It accepts that errors of judgment, conflicts of interest, cognitive bias and occasional misconduct are inevitable risks within any institution.

Its purpose is to establish safeguards capable of detecting those risks early, correcting them promptly and preventing them from developing into institutional crises.

This is why governance must never be regarded as a bureaucratic inconvenience or merely a regulatory obligation.

It is a strategic investment in institutional resilience.

The strongest institutions in the world are not those that avoid adversity altogether.

They are those that possess the humility to acknowledge weaknesses, the courage to confront uncomfortable truths and the discipline to continuously improve.

As former General Electric Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jack Welch wisely remarked:

“Face reality as it is, not as it was or as you wish it to be.”

No governance philosophy captures the essence of institutional excellence more succinctly.

For sustainable governance begins not with denial, defensiveness or the allocation of blame.

It begins with the courage to confront reality honestly.

Only then can institutions transform failure into reform, reform into resilience, and resilience into enduring public trust.

About the author
Omar FaFa M’Bai is a legal practitioner, a governance advocate, and a parent based in Dubai, UAE. He writes regularly on institutional integrity, leadership, and education across Africa, Middle East, and Asia.

Author’s reflection
This article is more than an academic reflection on financial governance and institutional integrity. It is also a deeply personal tribute to values that I witnessed throughout my life.

My late father, Alhaji FaFa Edrissa M’Bai, believed that public office was a sacred trust and that no nation could achieve lasting prosperity without strong institutions, accountability and respect for the rule of law.

At a time when strengthening financial discipline and promoting institutional accountability required exceptional courage, he championed reforms, including commissions of inquiry, in the belief that public confidence in government could only be sustained through transparency and accountability. Those convictions were not without personal cost. His commitment to principle attracted determined opposition from powerful interests resistant to reform, The Mafia. Although those struggles ultimately resulted in his departure from public office, they never diminished his belief that institutions must always be stronger than individuals and that integrity should never be sacrificed for convenience or political expediency.

Time has a remarkable way of revealing truth. Positions of authority are temporary. Public opinion evolves. Those who once opposed reform may later acknowledge its necessity. Yet principles endure. Integrity endures. Service endures. Legacy endures.

As I reflected on the themes explored in this article, I was reminded that governance is ultimately about character. It is about doing what is right, even when doing so comes at personal cost. It is about leaving institutions stronger than we found them. Those were principles my father lived by, and they remain the values that continue to inspire my own writing on governance, leadership and institutional integrity.

When my father passed away during the blessed month of Ramadan, I expressed my reflections in a poem. It remains a personal reminder that while truth may be challenged and those who defend it may endure hardship, a life dedicated to principle ultimately outlives both adversity and opposition.

The Mafia’s plan failed, because purpose cannot be buried.
Truth outlives power.
Integrity outlives office.
And a life lived in faithful service to Ya Allah (SWT) and country can never be crucified.

May Ya Allah (SWT) grant him Al-Jannahtul Firdaws and accept his lifelong service to The Gambia as an act of enduring charity. Ameen Yarab