SHOULD ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION MAR ARBITRAL PROCESS IN THE ABSENCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE?

Abstract

Corruption is the bane of many institutions around the world. Arbitration is often seen as resistant to corruption, but recent trends suggest otherwise. Allegation of corruption is rife in arbitration proceedings and may only be entertained if there is credible evidence to establish it, even though the threshold may be cumbersome. Until good faith is established, the tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction. Doing so risks rendering the award unenforceable. The poser in this article is: should mere allegation of corruption be enough to derail arbitration? The answer is no. Such an approach risks inviting tactical misuse, with parties raising corruption allegations based on frivolities as a strategy to delay proceedings, sidestep contractual duties, or erode the finality arbitration is designed to secure. However, tribunals can adjudicate such allegations, but it must be guided by the competence-competence doctrine, which distinguishes the arbitration agreement from the underlying contract. Using a doctrinal approach, the article analyses how corruption in arbitration is treated legally, drawing on international conventions, institutional rules, national laws, and case law from different jurisdictions. It explores whether corruption disputes are arbitrable, what standard of proof applies to such allegations, and the power of tribunals to investigate and sanction corrupt conducts and other salient issues. The study finds that contemporary arbitration practice increasingly distinguishes between mere allegations and proven instances of corruption, which aligns with principles of due process, party autonomy, and the presumption of good faith. The article concludes that maintaining strong evidentiary threshold preserves the integrity of arbitration while preventing its misuse as a strategic weapon. The study recommends procedural fairness, transparency, and integrity in the appointment of arbitrator.