The global anti-corruption framework has achieved important milestones. States have ratified conventions, passed laws, set up agencies and made public commitments. Civil society has expanded its work, investigative journalists expose wrongdoing at scale and many countries now offer at least some formal protections to whistleblowers.

But for most people, these advances mean little if those at the top are never held accountable. This is where the system is failing. Anti-corruption bodies are often underfunded or politically controlled and sabotaged. Investigations stall, powerful figures are protected and major cases fall apart. Meanwhile, people continue to face the consequences of corruption in failing public services, rising living costs and unemployment.

The current system works best when corruption is petty and local, but collapses when corruption becomes grand, political and organised. The global system does not yet have the tools to confront impunity at the highest level. Until this changes, global commitments will continue to feel distant from people’s realities and public frustration will keep growing.

The conference showed that more countries recognise that limited reforms are no longer enough. States adopted a groundbreaking resolution on political finance, acknowledging that democracy cannot survive when powerful interests secretly buy influence. They also committed to stronger cooperation between anti-corruption agencies and financial intelligence units. These were important signals.

It was also significant that several African countries, including Ghana, Kenya, Malawi and South Africa, spoke clearly about transparency and civic participation, despite pushback. This helped challenge the idea that anti-corruption agendas are ‘western-driven’ and showed that African states are demanding accountability and want to shape the solutions.

However, several governments were still determined to block progress. They contested civil society participation, weakened language on environmental crime and slowed down negotiations. They prioritised geopolitics over the public interest.

Most importantly, the conference again avoided the central issue: the world still lacks a credible way to prosecute kleptocrats when national systems are captured. Until this gap is addressed, UNCAC will remain a framework without an enforcement arm. The conference made progress, but incremental reforms cannot compensate for systemic impunity.

These themes are no longer side issues, they now stand at the centre of the fight against corruption. Civic space remains the most powerful tool available to people when institutions fail. Where authorities deregister civil society organisations, jail journalists or repress protesters, corruption spreads more easily. Yet some states continue to resist meaningful civil society participation.

Youth engagement appeared mainly in side events, but their role was clear. Young Africans are leading the revolution for accountability. They expose procurement fraud online, mobilise against impunity and push leaders to answer to the public. Any serious effort to tackle corruption must take their role seriously if we want to build institutions that survive generational change.

Technology was discussed as both an opportunity and a risk. Digital platforms can strengthen transparency and whistleblowing, but they also allow financial crime to move faster and with less visibility. No single institution can police that space alone. The message emerging from Doha was clear: fighting corruption requires real partnerships between governments, regulators, financial intelligence units, prosecutors, civil society, the media and digital activists. Corruption networks already work across borders, so responses must do too.

An International Anti-Corruption Court is needed because the current system cannot deal with the most serious corruption cases, particularly when those responsible control the police, prosecutors and, in some cases, the courts.

UNCAC sets important standards, but the court would create a way to act when national systems fail. It would enable the prosecution of kleptocrats and support the recovery of stolen assets. For Africa, this is particularly urgent given the scale of illicit financial flows that continue to drain public resources.

Turning the court into reality will require leadership from the global south, not only as supporters, but as co-architects. African states understand the cost of corruption and should help shape the solutions. It will also require sustained pressure from civil society and young people, as public demand remains the strongest driver of political will. States willing to lead must then take adequate steps, including hosting briefings, championing initiatives and committing to ratification once a treaty is finalised.

The protests across Africa show that public expectations are rising. People are demanding dignity, fairness and governments that serve them. The global system has talked about accountability for too long without delivering it at the highest levels. An International Anti-Corruption Court offers one possible way to close that gap. The question now is whether political leaders will match citizens’ demand for justice.