BCG’s Angola Bribery Scandal Exposes Africa’s Enduring Struggle with Corruption: Who Are The Real Culprits Behind the Evil of Bribery and Corruption?
“While Western companies may engage in corrupt practices, they do so within environments where bribery is often expected or even required to do business”.
Global consulting giant Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has recently admitted to paying millions of dollars in bribes to secure lucrative contracts in Angola, agreeing to forfeit over $14 million in profits as part of a settlement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ), according to the Financial Times.
This disclosure has once again spotlighted the issue of corruption in Africa, raising questions about the role of multinational companies in mega bribery. It highlights the intricate web of corruption that hinders investment and economic growth in some of the world’s poorest countries.
Made in Luanda and Lagos; Uncovered in Washington
The BCG case seems a clear example of how multinational corporations can exploit weak governance and accountability systems in Africa. According to the DoJ’s findings, BCG funneled illicit payments through offshore accounts managed by intermediaries with close ties to Angolan government officials and the ruling political party.
These payments were orchestrated through BCG’s Lisbon office between 2011 and 2017, a period that coincided with the final years of José Eduardo dos Santos’s 38-year rule over Angola. Dos Santos’s regime was widely criticized for its corruption and cronyism, and the BCG scandal underscores the extent to which foreign companies were willing to engage in unethical practices to secure business in Angola.
BCG secured a total of 12 contracts during this period—11 with Angola’s ministry of economy and one with the National Bank of Angola—generating $22.5 million in revenue. To secure these contracts, BCG agreed to pay an intermediary, who had connections to Angolan officials, between 20 percent and 35 percent of the contract value.
BCG employees in Portugal took deliberate steps to obscure the intermediary’s involvement, including backdating contracts and fabricating documents to legitimize the payments. These actions were specifically intended to mislead internal compliance checks.
Despite these clear violations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the DoJ opted not to prosecute BCG, citing the firm’s proactive approach in reporting the misconduct, dismissing the involved employees, and fully cooperating with the investigation.
The $180 Million Halliburton Bribery Case in Nigeria
The BCG case bears similarities to the infamous Halliburton scandal in Nigeria, another high-profile case involving a Western company paying bribes to secure contracts in Africa. In the Halliburton case, the company and its partners were found to have paid over $180 million in bribes to Nigerian officials between 1994 and 2004 to win contracts for the construction of a liquefied natural gas plant in Bonny Island. The case led to significant fines and settlements payments for Halliburton and its subsidiaries, with the US and UK authorities playing a crucial role in uncovering the corruption.
Both cases reflect the tendency for Western law enforcement agencies to take the lead in investigating and punishing corrupt practices involving their companies in Africa. (BCG reported itself to the authorities after an internal investigation in order to avoid heavy sanctions). In both cases, the African officials who received the bribes faced little to no consequences beyond being exposed as bribe takers. (There is still a theorectical possibility that the Angolan officials may face the law).
The African big men remain in their government positions after western law enforcement agencies (often the anglo-saxon ones) investigate and expose corruption. While the Halliburton executives who paid $180 in bribes were jailed, those who received the bribe in Nigeria escaped any punishment when the judge dismissed the EFCC case against them for “lack of dilligent prosecution” i.e government lawyers and/or the government were not interested in sending anyone to jail.
Africans Taking Responsibility for African Problems
While it’s convenient to blame foreign companies for exploiting weak political systems, the truth is that these systems are upheld by local officials who benefit from maintaining the status quo. The tendency to view these officials as helpless victims of foreign manipulation reflects both a degree of racism towards Africans and a lack of self-respect among Africans, as it dismisses the agency and responsibility of Africans.
The focus on Western companies as the primary culprits diverts attention from the more significant issue—Africans’ own responsibility for the quality of African governance and institutions.
The narrative that Western companies are solely or significantly responsible for corruption in Africa is a convenient but misleading one. It allows African leaders to deflect blame and avoid accountability for the systems they control. The reality is that corruption in Africa is a complex issue that involves both foreign and local actors. While Western companies may engage in corrupt practices, they do so within environments where bribery is often expected or even required to do business.
In many African countries, bureaucrats and politicians, from the highest big men to the most petty officials, demand bribes to perform their duties, creating a “pay-to-play” system that stifles local businesses and discourages foreign investment.
Bribery is often deeply ingrained in the bureaucratic processes of many African countries, making it difficult for businesses—both foreign and local—to operate without engaging in corrupt practices. African businesses are frequently the primary victims of the corruption that foreign companies are accused of perpetuating. The “pay-to-play” system harms competition, stifles innovation, and ultimately hinders economic growth more than it benefits any foreign corporation.
While it is convenient to blame foreign companies for this state of affairs, the reality is that corruption in Africa is a systemic issue that requires local solutions.
African intellectuals, journalists, activists, business elites etc must take responsibility for the quality of governance and law enforcement in their countries, rather than deflecting blame onto external actors. The narrative on corruption must clearly focus on taking responsibility and avoiding the distraction of even sharing the blame with outsiders.
Until Africans fully assume the responsibility for the quality of governance in their countries, corruption will remain a significant barrier to Africa’s development, with local businesses and ordinary citizens bearing the brunt of its negative impacts. The path forward requires a commitment to transparency, accountability, and reform from within Africa, rather than relying on external forces to drive change.
