That's obviously edited. And even the organization has already admitted that it is indeed edited. And they seem to have a valid excuse: to keep the winner's anonymity. But I don't understand how editing is relevant. After all, the winner is already covered all over.
The doubt as to corruption has solid basis. Government officials having access to money have all been corrupt. If they are stealing money even from small projects at the expense of the project's obvious quality, why shouldn't they steal huge amounts of money that is just to be given away to unknown and unidentified individuals? That would be much easier to steal. If they've moved heaven and earth just to steal from carefully audited government funds, why would they stop themselves from stealing this as well?
At first glance I thought it was just a normal picture but after reading the OP's post and see the " edited " word, I look at the pic again and noticed something strange in the woman's pants. Yet, I'm still not sure if it's truly edited or not, since I can sometimes see a picture like this which are not edited. But if it came to their own mouth that it was really edited, then fine. What can we do? At least they gave out a valid reason for it. That should make the people who criticized them to be quiet now.
The winner might be covered already but editing it will make her identity more concealed. I'm no way of defending them but this issue alone is not a solid base to say that they are really corrupt. And I believe that not all governments who has access to money are corrupt.