Skip to main

Author: harveygavin

A year on from the coup d’etat in Niger, Denitsa Zhelyazkova looks back at what has changed so far and what needs to happen to address corruption in the country’s defence sector.  

 

Last month marked an important date for political leaders and human rights advocates all around the globe: one full year after the coup d’etat in Niger. On July 26, 2023, senior army officers from the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (Conseil National pour la Sauvegarde de la Patrie, or CNSP), led by General Abdourahamane Tchiani, seized power, suspended the constitution and detained country’s democratically elected leader, President Mohamed Bazoum.  The junta claimed the reasons for the coup were the continuous deterioration of the security situation under Bazoum and poor economic management, among others. On August 20 that year, the coup leader proposed a three-year transition plan back to democratic rule, but concrete steps towards this have yet to materialise. Even though the 2023 mutiny was not a new phenomenon for the region, especially given the number of recent putsches in neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso, this coup signifies a pivotal point in Nigerien politics.  

 

Major changes since the coup 

  • Cutting ties with the West and regional actors:  Niger is heading for a shift in strategic alliance and moving away from traditional Western security providers. Strengthening regional ties with Mali and Burkina Faso under a new mutual defence pact called the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) resulted in the new ‘Confederation of Sahel States’, emphasising both economic and military cooperation. They signed a treaty on the July 6 this year restating their sovereignty from France’s influence in the region, their departure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), as well as their aim to create a new common currency.  In addition to potentially having catastrophic economic and further humanitarian consequences, this step will likely complicate relations with neighbouring states and reshape international influence in the Sahel region. 
  • New anti-corruption body: General Tchiani has dissolved two of the country’s highest courts, the Court of Cassation and State Council, replacing them with a new anti-corruption Commission and a State Court.  The commission’s main role will be recovering all illegally acquired and misappropriated public assets. Consisting of judges, army and police officers as well as representatives of civil society, the selection process of these members lacked transparency. Furthermore, it is not clear at this stage whether the anti-corruption regulations discussed under Bazoum will be implemented and whether the transitional commission and court can have an impact on that.  

 

Damage 

Turning away from democracy rarely leads to peace and stability.  

In the immediate aftermath of the coup, violence and human rights abuses spiked, with Human Rights Watch reporting that CNSP supporters looted and set fire to the headquarters of Bazoum’s party, the Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism (PNDS). 

France, the EU, and the US condemned the coup and suspended development aid. UN humanitarian operations were also stopped. The African Union (AU) responded by suspending Niger, while ECOWAS closed its borders, demanded Bazoum’s release, and threatened military intervention and sanctions. Tensions escalated further as Mali and Burkina Faso warned that ECOWAS intervention would be considered a ‘declaration of war’ against them. 

The putsch and its direct economic consequences are now threatening to worsen human suffering in the landlocked country that has been grappling with poverty, political instability and endemic corruption for decades. Being one of the poorest countries in world, Niger recently ranked 189 out of 193 territories in the critical HDI value from the UN’s Human Development Index, signalling a dire humanitarian crisis. Even though ECOWAS sanctions were lifted in February this year for humanitarian purposes, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported a surge in humanitarian need. An additional 600,000 people required humanitarian assistance in 2023, to an estimated total of some 4.3 million people, as extreme poverty is expected to reach 52%. Despite faring comparatively better against Burkina Faso and Mali in terms of fatalities, Niger is still suffering with violence and internal turmoil, with over 370,000 internally displaced people, primarily consisting of women and children. 

 

ACLED graph using their own data on political violence, August 3, 2023.

 

The vicious cycle of conflict and corruption 

Niger has been struggling with jihadist violence and security threats on several fronts, from IS Sahel and the al-Qaeda-affiliated JNIM in the west and south of the country, to bandits, organised crime networks in resource-rich Agadez as well as Tahoua, and even Boko Haram rebels around Diffa near the border with Nigeria. Despite these serious security challenges, historically weak governance of the defence sector has been eroding Niger’s capabilities to defend its own citizens. An embezzlement case in 2020 revealed how a notorious arms dealer exploited government contracts for nearly a decade to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase weapons from Russia. With more than $130 million lost to corruption in this case alone, it brought to light just how urgent reform of the security sector, with anti-corruption at the core, is.  

Now that the country is ruled by a military government, increased levels of secrecy are expected to rise around defence planning and spending, as well as personnel recruitment and payments. The newly adopted Ordinance 2024-05 of February 23, 2024, is a huge step backwards in terms of good governance in the security sector, allowing for even more opaque practices in defence budget planning and management. The new decree dictates that public procurement and public accounting expenses related to the acquisition of equipment, materials, supplies, as well as the performance of works or services intended for the Defense and Security Forces (FDS) are exempt from regular oversight regulations. Moreover, defence expenses are exempt from taxes, duties and fees during the transition period. Unfortunately, opaque practices have become the norm when it comes to Niger’s defence governance.  

The 2020 iteration of Transparency International – Defence & Security’s Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI) found that Niger faces a very high level of corruption risk, which is consistent with other fragile and conflict-affected states in the region. The results showcase the country’s issue with building robust institutions despite increased military spending and advanced operational training by Western allies in the past years. Scoring in the bottom quarter of the GDI 2020, Niger received the lowest score of all West African countries assessed in the index, with secrecy and opaque procurement practices being the biggest concerns. According to the 2013 Decree on defence and security procurement, Niger’s defence acquisition plan is not subject to public disclosure and is classified as “top secret,” nor is the plan subject to legislative scrutiny by the Security and Defence Committee. Despite the egregious 2020 embezzlement case, findings from a 2022 audit on state spending estimate budget discrepancies of approximately $99 million. Greater public oversight of defence spending, not expanded exemptions from transparency for the military and security services, is vital to restoring public trust and to ensure much-needed funds are not lost to corruption.  Considering the new cooperation agreements with global actors notorious for the high levels of corruption risk in their defence sectors – such as Russia and Turkey – it is crucial for Niger to prioritise transparency and accountability in its defence governance. 

One key rationale the military provided for the taking power last year was the worsening security in the country. However, violence has persisted and escalated, calling into question the effectiveness of military operations. Oversight of military spending has also been curtailed. Corruption in the defence sector not only hinders military capabilities, but also erodes public trust in the very institutions established to protect citizens. If opaque practices persist, allowing greedy officials to benefit while citizens continue to suffer, this can bring even more instability. Following the steps of Mail and Burkina Faso could potentially drag Niger into a vicious cycle of coups, violence, loss of territory to rebels, and of course the fuel driving the cycle – widespread corruption in the security sector.  The path to democracy inevitably starts with focusing efforts on building resilient institutions and addressing corruption as a top priority through an urgent (and long-overdue) security sector reform.

Ara Marcen Naval examines how Venezuela’s military entrenchment in government and the economy undermines democracy and fuels corruption, and highlights the urgent need for transparency and civilian oversight.

 

Venezuela’s recent turmoil, marked by allegations of electoral fraud and widespread protests, reflects deeper systemic issues affecting the nation. These issues include evidence of rampant corruption, an overly militarised government, and the erosion of democratic principles.  

The Venezuelan government’s adoption of a ‘civic-military’ model, has led to the military’s deep entrenchment in both political and economic spheres. This strategy not only ensures military loyalty through ideological indoctrination but also through substantial economic privileges. Consequently, the military’s influence extends far beyond traditional defence roles. 

According to a 2021 report by Transparencia Venezuela, the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) hold significant positions in key sectors. Military personnel are present in the boards of at least 103 public companies and 11 out of 34 government ministries. Furthermore, 24 companies under the Ministry of Defence, mostly unrelated to military functions, highlight the extensive military footprint in non-defence areas. 

There are risks associated with the military’s involvement in Venezuela’s economy. The military controls crucial sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture and food, which allows them to manipulate essential resources. This control is not only undemocratic but also breeds corruption and inefficiency. 

Transparencia Venezuela reported an increase in the number of military personnel on public company boards from 2020 to 2021. However, this increased presence has not led to improved transparency or accountability. Many military-run enterprises operate with little public oversight, raising serious concerns about corruption and mismanagement. According to the Government Integrity Index, Venezuela faces critical corruption risks across its defence sector. Civilian democratic control of the military is extremely weak, and defence institutions are largely unaccountable to the public. Corruption is endemic throughout the sector. External scrutiny and institutional transparency are virtually non-existent, particularly concerning arms acquisitions and financial management. This lack of oversight exacerbates corruption and mismanagement issues, further undermining democratic governance and public trust. 

The political power wielded by the military in Venezuela is equally concerning. Numerous former military officials occupy significant political roles, including governorships and mayoralties. The 2021 regional elections saw several ex-military figures elected, underscoring the military’s entrenched political influence. 

Nicolás Maduro, the political successor of Chávez, has continued and deepened the militarisation of the government. During his tenure, a significant number of high-ranking government positions have been occupied by active or retired military officers, further consolidating military power within the state apparatus. The FANB has expanded its role in the economy and the management of the country’s strategic resources. In essence, the Venezuelan Armed Forces are closely tied to Chávez, Maduro, and their political project. This intertwining of military and political power creates a robust support system for the ruling regime. By placing military loyalists in key civilian roles, the regime secures a power base that is resistant to opposition and external pressures. 

The Venezuelan government leverages its control over the armed forces to maintain ‘social peace’, which often means suppressing dissent and protests through force. The recent electoral fraud allegations have sparked significant public outcry, met with harsh responses from the government, calling the demonstrations ‘terrorists acts’ and sending the security forces to clash with upset citizens. This repression stifles democratic expression and perpetuates a cycle of fear and control. 

The militarisation and corruption within the Venezuelan government have profound implications for democracy. The dominance of military power in political and economic spheres erodes democratic institutions and processes. Electoral fraud allegations are symptomatic of a broader decline in democratic norms, where elections are manipulated to maintain the status quo rather than reflect the will of the people. 

While Venezuela finds its way out the current situation, hopefully moving towards democratic principles, there will need to find pathways to address these deep-rooted issues. First, enhancing transparency and accountability within military-run enterprises is crucial. Implementing robust anti-corruption measures and ensuring independent audits of military expenditures can help restore public trust. 

Moreover, reducing the military’s role in civilian government functions is essential to strengthening democratic institutions. Encouraging civilian oversight of the military and promoting democratic norms can gradually diminish the military’s political influence. To get out of the current crisis, there is a need to improve the governance of the defence sector, and the military has a key role in the democratisation and accountability process.

This is a summary of a longer piece by our Defence & Security Gender Specialist, Sabrina White. You can read the full version here.

 

Corruption has gender dynamics that shape the forms, vulnerability to, experiences and impacts of corruption. Defence and security personnel have been implicated in forms of corruption that are directly linked to sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), including sexual extortion, human trafficking, bribery and extortion in justice processes for survivors of gender-based violence.  Forms of corruption related to the arms trade, human trafficking and borders can exacerbate gendered insecurities and contribute to climates prone to SGBV. This blog highlights the urgent need for anti-corruption measures in the defence and security sector to incorporate a gender perspective and to connect anti-corruption to obligations to address SGBV. While there are some existing tools to promote anti-corruption measures that prevent and respond to gender dynamics of corruption, such as gender mainstreaming and gender balance strategies, they are only effective if backed by adequate political will, awareness, resourcing and expertise.

 

Defence and security sector corruption can perpetuate environments conducive to SGBV, where women and people of diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) are particularly vulnerable. Effective oversight of military personnel must address SGBV and integrate gender perspectives from frameworks like the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda, which, despite not explicitly addressing corruption, entail obligations for preventing and responding to SGBV.

 

Viewing gender equality as a core component of anti-corruption expands the focus from compliance and individuals to institutional reform and building integrity. Combining gender equality and anti-corruption as joint concerns offers opportunities to build evidence on best and promising practices. In the article,  we provide a brief overview of corruption-related gender-based violence risks and promising strategies of gender balance and gender mainstreaming for mitigating these risks.

 

Read the full version of this article here.

July 30, 2024 – Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS) expresses deep concern that the potential ‘disintegration’ of state cooperation in West Africa could exacerbate conflict in the already unstable region. 

Following a summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) earlier this month, the bloc cautioned the formation of a breakway union, run by the military juntas in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, would worsen insecurity and disrupt the work of a long-proposed regional force. 

Research by TI-DS  previously found that Mali, Niger, Ghana and Nigeria all face a very high risk of corruption in their defence and security sectors, while Burkina Faso is at a critical risk. Corruption in these sectors increases the risk of conflict and weakens the ability to manage and resolve unrest, compromising regional stability. 

 

Sara Bandali, Director of International Engagement at Transparency International UK, said:  

“We express deep concern over the recent warning from ECOWAS about the potential damage to the region’s security following the formation of a breakaway union by the military rulers of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. In a region already marred by conflict and insecurity – much of which has been caused or exacerbated by corruption in the defence and security sectors – this move threatens to make the region and its people less safe.  

“Cooperation, not competition, are key to addressing the corruption and insecurity issues the region faces. It’s clear that corruption in the defence and security sectors makes conflict more likely by fuelling the flames of grievance and unrest, while simultaneously making it harder to manage conflicts after they arise by weakening the effectiveness of military response. 

“We urge regional leaders to prioritise unity and collective action for a secure future free from corruption and the conflict that both stems from, and is fuelled by it. We stand ready to support governments and civil society in the region in this vital endeavor.” 

 

Notes to editors: 

Mali, Niger, Ghana and Nigeria and Burkina Faso feature in Transparency International Defence & Security’s 2020 Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI). 

The Index scores and ranks countries based on the strength of their safeguards against defence and security corruption.  

Mali, Niger, Ghana and Nigeria all appear in band ‘E’, indicating a ‘very high’ risk of corruption. Burkina Faso is in band ‘F’, indicating a ‘critical’ risk.

As world leaders convene in Washington DC for the 2024 NATO summit, Ara Marcen Naval highlights the need to address and prevent corruption in military spending. 

 

As global insecurity rises, so does militarisation and defence spending. The latest data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows world military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2.443 trillion in 2023. This represents an increase of 6.8 per cent in real terms from 2022, which is the steepest year-on-year increase since 2009.  This sharp rise demands our attention and underscores the urgent need for greater transparency in military spending. 

Transparency International Defence & Security has long sounded the alarm on corruption – a hidden threat in times of rising military expenditure. 

Corruption in the defence sector is multifaceted. While bribery is the most recognised form, corruption also includes conflicts of interest, embezzlement, nepotism, sextortion, and undue influence. This pervasive issue thrives in environments characterised by secrecy and wealth – factors that are especially prevalent in the defence and security sector. Often deemed too complex and sensitive for meaningful external scrutiny, this sector is fertile ground for corruption when oversight is inadequate. 

The rise in defence spending is linked with increasing corruption risks. Increased spending must be accompanied by vigilant attention to corruption risk. There is a strong indication that the relationship between defence spending and corruption is cyclical. In countries experiencing state capture – where private interests corrupt a country’s decision-making to benefit themselves, rather than the public – elites are more likely to prioritise military spending, further perpetuating corruption. 

Many defence institutions worldwide are ill-equipped to manage the higher corruption risks that militarisation brings. Transparency International Defence and Security’s Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI), which assesses countries on the strength of their safeguards against defence and security corruption, shows one-third of the world’s top 40 highest military spenders face high to critical corruption risks in their defence sectors. Even if some high spenders may have stronger domestic controls, they often export arms to countries facing much greater corruption risks. 

Evidence shows that countries spending more on defence as a percentage of GDP tend to score lower in the GDI, indicating higher vulnerability to corruption. The 15 countries with the biggest military spending increases between 2021 and 2023 fall into c moderate to high corruption risk categories. 

As international insecurity rises, so does global defence spending. However, the hidden cost of this escalation is the proliferation of corruption within the defence sector. When defence spending rises in countries where corruption safeguards are not prioritised, the issue becomes more serious. Corruption in the defence sector undermines peace and security by diverting critical resources and eroding public trust. 

To manage the corruption risks associated with defence spending, NATO and its allies should: 

  • Ensure comprehensive transparency and oversight of defence budgets, allowing the public to have a clear picture of spending plans. 
  • Implement controls to reduce the risk of funds being lost to corruption as budgets are spent, such as granting parliaments, or a parliamentary defence committee, extensive powers to scrutinise spending and publishing the approved budget in an easy-to-understand form. 
  • Integrate anti-corruption measures into arms export controls to prevent exporting arms to countries unable to manage corruption risks. 
  • Utilise good governance and transparency as a tool for deterrence against foreign or domestic threats.  

Only by addressing and preventing corruption can we ensure that defence and security sectors genuinely uphold national and human security, rather than exacerbating insecurity and putting populations at further risk of harm. 

 

About the Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI) 

The GDI measures institutional resilience to corruption by focusing on policymaking and public sector governance in national defence institutions. The Index is organized into five main risk areas: policymaking and political affairs, finances, personnel management, military operations, and procurement. Each indicator is scored based on five levels from 0-100, and scores are aggregated to determine the overall corruption risk level, ranging from A to F. 

 

Header image: Dragoș Asaftei – stock.adobe.com 

Michael Ofori-Mensah, Head of Research at Transparency International Defence & Security, said:  

“On Africa Day 2024, we acknowledge the significance of this celebration and the tremendous potential for progress across the continent.  

“To ensure a bright future for Africa’s 1.2 billion people, it is crucial to address the pervasive issue of corruption within the defence and security sectors.  

“Our research has shown how opaque procurement processes, mismanagement of defence budgets and weak oversight have resulted in the waste of funds, the erosion of public trust and the undermining of national security.  

“Nigeria’s counter-insurgency efforts against Boko Haram have been severely hampered by corruption, while South Africa’s defence procurement scandals vividly highlight the broader challenges faced by the continent.  

“It is important to also highlight the positive developments, including increased transparency initiatives and strengthened anti-corruption efforts in various African countries and through regional cooperation. 

“Corruption in the defence sector has far-reaching consequences for governance and democracy, diverting resources away from essential services and fueling conflict and instability. 

“By addressing defence sector corruption, African states can safeguard national security, promote economic development, and strengthen democratic institutions. Transparency International Defence & Security stands ready to support African governments and civil society in this crucial endeavor.” 

 

Transparency International Defence & Security calls upon African governments and African regional institutions to:  

  1. Enhance transparency and accountability: Implement robust transparency measures in defence procurement, budgeting, and decision-making processes. Establish independent oversight bodies and strengthen parliamentary oversight over defence activities. 
  1. Strengthen anti-corruption frameworks: Enact and enforce comprehensive anti-corruption laws, including whistleblower protection mechanisms, and ensure the independence and adequate resourcing of anti-corruption agencies. 
  1. Foster regional cooperation: Strengthen regional cooperation and information sharing on defence sector corruption, leveraging existing frameworks like the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) initiatives. 
  1. Promote civic engagement: Encourage civil society organisations and the media to actively monitor and report on defence sector activities, fostering public scrutiny and accountability. 
  1. Prioritise good governance: Uphold democratic principles, the rule of law, and good governance practices within defence institutions, as these are essential for preventing corruption and maintaining political stability. 

 

May 7, 2024 – A new briefing from Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS) sheds light on the profound personal and societal impacts of corruption within the defence & security sectors and tells the often-overlooked stories of those who have suffered as a direct consequence. 

Betrayed by the Guardians demonstrates how institutional weaknesses, gaps in oversight, systematic abuses of power, and lack of accountability within defence institutions have a disastrous impact on people’s lives. 

Read the report 

As well as shedding light on the human impact, TI-DS makes the case for some of the key systemic steps needed to address the risk of corruption in these sectors. 

The briefing features a series of compelling personal stories from around the globe, including: 

  • Amid the chaos and destruction of civil war in Sudan, exacerbated by corrupt arms trading despite international embargoes, Mazin’s life was shattered. His brother was hospitalised after a violent robbery by unaccountable military personnel, and his family’s business was destroyed. 
  • In Myanmar, 160 civilians, including 40 children, were killed when a village was bombed by the military junta. The weapons used in the airstrike were produced from raw materials and equipment supplied from private companies operating out of Singapore, despite sanctions and arms embargoes on Myanmar.  
  • Shoja witnessed the pervasive corruption within the security sector in Afghanistan. He recounts how wounded soldiers faced amputation unless they could afford to bribe military doctors or leverage connections for better treatment. 

 

Sara Bandali, Director of International Engagement at Transparency International UK, said:  

“This briefing not only highlights the devastating human consequences of corruption in the defence and security sectors – it also serves as an urgent call to action.  

“The stories presented here reveal a collapse in the accountability mechanisms that are supposed to prevent the misuse of power, especially in the sector that is supposed to protect us. When these safeguards fail, a pervasive culture of impunity takes hold, disproportionately harming those with the least power. 

“By implementing robust frameworks of institutional integrity and accountability, governments worldwide can mitigate these impacts and safeguard security and human rights for all.” 

 

Ara Marcen Naval, Head of Advocacy at Transparency International Defence & Security, said: 

“Too often, I witness corruption being brushed off as a bureaucratic offense, with the focus on the culprits, the loopholes that let them off the hook, and the heavy economic and political toll it takes.  

“But what about the people whose lives are shattered by corruption? Especially within defence & security institutions – the very ones tasked with safeguarding us – the stakes couldn’t be higher.  

“I’ve seen first-hand how corruption betrays the trust placed in our guardians. It’s not just a crime; it’s a blatant injustice, a roadblock to development, and a flagrant violation of human rights.” 

 

As the international community prepares for the Summit for the Future in September 2024, TI-DS reminds that corruption is not victimless. To address corruption in the defence & security sectors, we call on governments to: 

  1. Strengthen anti-corruption measures in defence

Reinforce governance of the defence sector with integrity measures by strengthening anti-corruption laws, regulations, and codes of conduct. Transparency International Defence & Security’s Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI) provides further guidance on good practice for defence sector resilience against corruption. 

  1. Increase transparency in defence decision-making

Open up the secretive world of defence policymaking, budgets, and spending, ensuring they are accountable and bringing corruption risks and misconduct to light. 

  1. Mobilise agents of change

Encourage the active participation of civil society, international organisations and media as agents of transformation, working hand in hand to drive out corruption in defence and security. 

  1. Protect whistleblowers

Enact robust whistleblower protection systems that encourage and shield those willing to stand up and speak the truth. 

  1. Promote global anti-corruption efforts

Join international sanctions and agreements, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), and resist ‘defence exceptionalism’ – the idea that the defence & security sectors are exempt from normal transparency and accountability processes – in these frameworks. 

 

Notes: 

Join us at 3pm BST tomorrow (May 8) for our webinar ahead of the UN Civil Society Conference in Nairobi. The event will feature a discussion by anti-corruption champions and peacebuilders from around the world on how the upcoming UN Summit of the Future and its accompanying Pact of the Future can be a pathway to much-needed systemic change on how we view and address corruption in defence & security.

As world military spending hits all-time high, findings from Transparency International highlight urgent need for transparency and accountability 

 

April 24, 2024 – Rising military expenditure is outpacing countries’ safeguards against corruption and threatening national and global security, new research from Transparency International finds.

Trojan Horse Tactics explores the nexus between the risk of corruption in the defence sector and rapid militarisation fuelled by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, conflicts in the Middle East and the Sahel, and heightened tensions in the Asia-Pacific. 

Read the report  

This comprehensive paper by Transparency International Defence & Security (TI-DS) examines the relationship between military expenditure and corruption through the lens of defence governance. 

Analysis using the TI-DS Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI), which assesses nearly 90 countries on the strength of their corruption safeguards, combined with military spending data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reveals a clear trend. Countries that spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP tend to score lower in the GDI, indicating a higher vulnerability to corruption. 

Additionally, the issue is becoming more serious. Data released by SIPRI this week shows world military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2.443 trillion in 2023. This represents an increase of 6.8 per cent in real terms from 2022, which is the steepest year-on-year increase since 2009. 

Corruption in the defence & security sector, including bribery, conflicts of interest, embezzlement, nepotism and sextortion severely undermines national security. These practices divert critical resources and erode public trust, weakening a country’s defence capabilities and stability. 

Despite this, ‘defence exceptionalism’ – the idea that because of national security considerations the sector should be exempt from transparency norms – means that many countries neglect or completely ignore good governance standards such as parliamentary and civil oversight, accountability, and transparency rules. 

 

Sara Bandali, Director of International Engagement at Transparency International UK, said:  

“In an era marked by increasing militarisation, it’s crucial that we confront the deep-seated vulnerabilities to corruption in the defence & security sector.  

“Our findings clearly indicate that rising military spending is linked with heightened corruption risks, which in turn threaten national and global security. Our previous research has shown how many defence institutions in countries around the world are ill-equipped to manage the higher corruption risks militarisation brings. If militarisation is to achieve the aim of upholding national and human security, these are issues which can no longer be overlooked. 

“The evidence-based Government Defence Integrity Index not only identifies key areas of concern but also sets global benchmarks for accountability and transparency. We urge all countries to move towards these standards in response to growing insecurity.” 

 

TI-DS calls on all countries to make transparency and accountability around defence spending a core aspect of the response to increased global insecurity by:  

  1. Improving transparency and appropriate oversight of defence budgets to ensure that the public has as comprehensive a picture as possible of spending plans. 
  2. Introducing controls to reduce risks of funds being lost to corruption as budgets are spent. 
  3. Integrating anti-corruption measures into arms exports controls. This is to prevent exporting countries providing arms to countries which cannot demonstrate their will and capacity to manage corruption risks. 

April 11, 2024 – New research from Transparency International warns that the United States is ignoring potentially dangerous corruption risks around opaque defence contract payments (aka ‘offsets’) that threaten to undermine U.S. and international security.

As the U.S. escalates its defence collaboration globally, Blissfully Blind breaks down the complex web of corruption risks associated with offsets – financial sweeteners added to overseas arms sales in addition to the military hardware the country receives.

Read the report

Offsets are increasingly common parts of international arms deals but the huge amounts of money involved combined with a lack of transparency, especially for offsets going to economic sectors outside defence, makes them especially vulnerable to corruption.

Defence companies are incentivised to offer big offset packages to secure lucrative deals. Foreign officials in importing countries may choose to buy from whichever firm they can personally gain the most, regardless of whether they offer best value for the people they represent.

 

Gary Kalman, Executive Director at Transparency International U.S. (TI-US), said:

“The culture of offsets in international arms sales may seem an odd practice to the public. Imagine the look you’d get from telling a car dealership that you’ll only buy a car from them if they help fund your child’s school.

“The corruption and other risks of these side deals are so great that, in most industries, the practice is banned. Yet, in the defence sector offsets are standard practice.

“At the very least, we need the type of transparency and accountability called for this in this report.”

 

Key Findings:

  • The global value of defence offsets is projected to reach $371 billion for the 2021-2025 period, with U.S. defence firms estimated to provide between $36.5 billion and $52.4 billion for FY 2021 and FY 2022 combined.
  • Among arms importing countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, and the UK all face high or very high corruption risk due to a lack of transparency, support for risky types of investments, and weak monitoring or enforcement around offset contracts.
  • Other arms importing countries, including Australia, India, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, and Ukraine have specific high-risk aspects of their offset policies.
  • Corruption in defence offsets can undermine efforts to obtain critical defensive capabilities, waste government funds, complicate U.S. government and defence company relations with key security partners and weaken citizen faith in governments.
  • Meanwhile, U.S. defence companies show weak controls to prevent corruption in offsets. Many lack explicit policies and procedures to address the risks.
  • The U.S. government’s ‘hands-off’ approach to overseeing offsets effectively leaves defence firms to mark their own homework. Regulation of offset agreements by the Commerce Department is inadequate.

This report comes at a critical moment. There are increasing demands for offsets from purchasing countries and greater collaboration with countries like the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia – all nations with minimal anti-corruption safeguards in their defence sectors. 

And in the U.S., there are now moves by Congress to further weaken the already lax checks on offset arrangements by significantly raising the dollar value of arms deals that require congressional review before they can go ahead.

 

Colby Goodman, Senior Researcher at Transparency International – Defence & Security and author of the report, said:

“A surge in demand for defence offsets, inadequate anti-corruption measures by U.S. defence companies, poor safeguards in many U.S. partner nations, and lenient oversight from Washington has created a perfect storm of corruption risks, which has the very real chance of undermining any public benefit of the offsets to the importing country.

“It’s essential that these corruption risks are confronted and mitigated, with responsibility falling on both the U.S. and importing countries to enact meaningful reforms.”

 

The report makes a series of targeted recommendations to the U.S. government that would enhance the oversight of defence offsets and significantly address corruption risks, while also ensuring U.S. defence firms do not face unnecessary barriers to their business with international partners:

  1. Increase transparency by strengthening reporting on defence offsets and political contributions. Prioritize detailed private disclosures through the State and Defence Departments and establish an interagency task force to improve overall private and public transparency.
  2. Assess corruption risks by taking a proactive approach to mitigate corruption risks in offsets by reviewing agreements and conducting comprehensive studies on past arrangements. A focus should be on indirect offsets (investments not directly related to the equipment being sold in the contract)  and partner country controls.
  3. Penalize wrongdoing by enhancing the investigation and prosecution of offset-related corruption, establishing watchlists for offenders, and enforcing strict penalties for non-compliance with reporting requirements.
  4. Encourage stronger foreign offset policies by urging U.S. partner countries to do the following: adopt transparent and effective offset policies, emphasize the disclosure of offset details similar to Australia, demand stricter oversight of high-risk activities, and ensure robust enforcement against violations.

 

Notes to editors:

Transparency International is a global network with chapters in more than 100 countries to end the injustices caused by corruption.

Blissfully Blind is a joint research report from Transparency International – Defence & Security, one of Transparency International’s global programs that works to reduce corruption in defence and security sectors worldwide, and Transparency International U.S.

The report was produced through a comprehensive approach that included reviewing U.S. defence offset laws and regulations, analysis of U.S. arms sales data and reports, and 30 interviews with industry experts, U.S. government officials, and representatives from partner countries such as India, Malaysia, and South Korea.

Defence offsets are side deals made between a purchasing government and a foreign defence company in connection with a major arms sale. They are an inducement offered by a defence company and/or a requirement by the purchasing government and would not exist without an arms sale. Offsets typically involve defence companies investing in the local defence industry or other economic sectors in the purchasing country. Offsets can be direct, that is tied to the specific equipment or service sold, or indirect, a broad investment unrelated to a specific contract.

April 9, 2024 – In the face of Haiti’s escalating crisis, marked by a surge in gang violence, a recent UN report underscores the critical need for an unwavering commitment to accountability and anti-corruption measures across public and defence sectors. 

A UN Human Rights Office report calls for immediate and bold action to tackle the “cataclysmic” situation in Haiti. 

In 2023, 4,451 people were killed and 1,668 injured due to gang violence. The number skyrocketed in the first three months of 2024, with 1,554 killed and 826 injured up to 22 March. 

The report identifies key factors contributing to the crisis including an illicit economy incubated by corruption that facilitates the patronage of armed gangs by elites, and widespread corruption that contributed to the pervasive impunity in the country’s justice systems. 

 

Responding to the worsening situation and intensified gang violence in Haiti, Sara Bandali, Director of International Engagement at Transparency International UK, said: 

“We stand firmly with UN High Commissioner Volker Türk in making Haiti’s security crisis a top priority to protect its people and end the spiral of suffering.  

“With gang violence and ‘self-defence brigades’ on the rise, and a government that is highly susceptible to corruption, the resurgence of private military security companies could also further destabilise the country.  

“The urgency to confront the twin issues of corruption and governance failures is paramount. Accountability and anti-corruption efforts across public bodies and the defence & security sector are critical for the nation’s return to peace, stability, and security, and should never be traded off. 

 

Notes to editors: 

Transparency International – Defence & Security previously warned about the destablising effects of private military security companies on Haiti following the assassination of the country’s president in 2021. 

Our Hidden Costs report provides further detail on private military security companies and the risks they pose to fuelling corruption and conflict.

 

Photo by Heather Suggitt on Unsplash.

By Patrick Kwasi Brobbey (Research Project Manager), Léa Clamadieu and Irasema Guzman Orozco (Research Project Officers) 

 

Corruption in defence and security heightens conflict risks, wastes public resources, and exacerbates human insecurity. It is crucial to recognise the gravity of corruption in the defence and security sector and develop institutional safeguards against it. Against this backdrop, Transparency International – Defence & Security (TI-DS) is launching the 2025 Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI) – the premier global measure of institutional resilience to corruption in the defence and security sector. This blog outlines what the GDI entails, its relevance, how it is produced, and essential information about the launch.   

What is the GDI? 

The GDI analyses institutional and informal controls to manage the risk of corruption in public defence and security establishments. The index focuses on five broad risk areas of defence: policymaking, finances, personnel management, operations, and procurement. To provide a broad and comprehensive reflection of these risk areas, the GDI assesses both legal frameworks and their implementation, as well as resources and outcomes. 

Because of its focus, the index provides a framework of good practice that promotes accountable, transparent, and responsible governance in national defence establishments. The GDI is a critical tool in driving global defence reform and improving defence governance.  

Previously dubbed the Government Defence Anti-corruption Index, the GDI was first released in 2013. Updated results were published in 2015, before the index went a major overhaul in 2020.  The project now runs in a five-year cycle, so the new iteration will be published in 2025.  

Gender: A New Dimension of the GDI 

For the first time, the GDI will incorporate a gender approach. The 2024-2026 TI-DS Strategy acknowledges that corruption in the defence sector involves gendered power dynamics that produce different impacts, perceptions, risks, forms of corruption, and experiences for diverse groups of women, men, girls, boys, and sexual and gender minorities. In alignment with the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda, many defence and security institutions now recognise gender. Nevertheless, their efforts mainly focus on achieving gender balance, mainstreaming, and representation. There is a lack of visibility on gendered corruption risks in the defence and security policy agenda, as anti-corruption measures and gender concerns are often addressed separately. 

Consistent with our commitment to addressing this, the 2025 GDI adopts a gender perspective to assess the gender dimensions of corruption risks in this sector. For this iteration, gender indicators have been developed and will be piloted. The gendered corruption risk indicators cover four cross-cutting themes: legal and normative commitments, gender balance strategies, gender mainstreaming strategies, and prevention and response to gender-based violence.  

Integrating gender into corruption risk assessments like the GDI can help produce gendered anti-corruption interventions that recalibrate uneven power relations affecting people of diverse genders and minority groups. Additionally, it will help to identify evidence-based best practices in the gender, anti-corruption, and security space. 

Why is the GDI important? 

The GDI offers an evidence-based approach which emphasises that better institutional controls reduce the risk of corruption. It constitutes a comprehensive assessment of integrity matters in the defence sector and plays a crucial role in driving global defence reform, thereby improving defence governance. 

The relevance of the index is enshrined in the rationale for creating it. The GDI recognises that:  

  • Corruption within the defence and security sector impede states’ ability to defend themselves and provide the needed security for their citizens. For instance, in Iraq in 2014, 50,000 ‘ghost soldiers’ were found in the budget – soldiers that existed only on paper and whose salaries were stolen by senior or high-ranking officers. The Iraqi forces were left depleted, unprepared to face real threats and unable to protect citizens and provide national security.
  • The secrecy of the defence sector contributes to the wastage of resources and the weakening of public institutions, facilitating the personalisation/privatisation of public resources for private gains via defence establishments. According to the 2020 GDI, 37% of states in the index had limited to no transparency on procurements.
  • Efficacious public institutions and informal mechanisms are central in preventing the wastage of state funds, the misappropriation of power, and the development of graft in the defence and security sector. In 2023, it was revealed that the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence was planning to overpay suppliers for food intended for troops. This led to official investigations and ultimately saw the auditions in the Ukrainian parliament pass legislation that enhances transparency in defence procurement.

These examples underscore the importance and timeliness of the GDI in rooting out corruption in national defence and security sectors. 

How is the GDI created? 

The GDI consists of questions broken down into indicators spanning the five corruption risks. These serve as the basis of data collection in countries carefully selected using the TI-DS selection criteria, which predominantly centre on the susceptibility of a country’s defence institutions to corruption. These countries will be drawn from the following TI regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific and South Asia, and Western Europe and North America.  

TI-DS uses a rigorous methodology consisting of an independent Country Assessor conducting research and providing an original, context-specific data that is accurate and verifiable. The data are then first extensively reviewed by a TI-DS team of topical and methodology experts before being sent to external reviewers (specifically, peer reviewers and relevant TI national chapters and governments) for additional quality checks. As part of its commitment to transparency, TI-DS has published the GDI Methods Paper that outlines the methodological and analytical considerations and choices . 

Overview of the Launch 

The 2025 GDI research project, which will be conducted in six waves representing the TI regions, began on Tuesday 26 March 2023. A webinar was organised for TI national chapters whose countries are in the first wave. This information session ensured mutual learning between TI-DS and the chapters. Other webinars will be organised later for chapters whose countries are in the subsequent waves. 

TI-DS has secured ample funding for the sub-Saharan African wave of the 2025 GDI. However, as the GDI is of utmost importance and requires timely execution, we are working towards securing additional funding to cover the administrative and operational costs of the remaining five waves. TI-DS invites the stakeholders to get in touch via gdi@transparency.org to help support the remaining waves. Thank you. 

March 28, 2024 – Transparency International – Defence & Security (TI-DS) is excited to announce the start of work on the next iteration of the Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI), the leading global benchmark of corruption risks in the defence and security sector.  

The GDI 2025 is TI-DS’s flagship research product and follows on from the GDI 2020. This latest iteration includes expert assessments of around 90 countries as well as the introduction of a gender perspective, recognising the nuanced impacts of corruption across different gender and underrepresented groups. 

The GDI provides a framework of good practice that promotes accountable, transparent, and responsible governance in the defence & security sector. It is a useful tool for civil society to collaborate with Ministries of Defence, the armed forces, and with oversight institutions, to build their capacity in advocating for transparency and integrity. 

Countries are evaluated by independent assessors who assess the strength of anti-corruption safeguards and institutional resilience to corruption in five key areas: 

  1. Financial: includes strength of safeguards around military asset disposals, whether a country allows military-owned businesses, and whether the full extent of military spending is publicly disclosed.  
  2. Operational: includes corruption risk in a country’s military deployments overseas and the use of private security companies.  
  3. Personnel: includes how resilient defence sector payroll, promotions and appointments are to corruption, and the strength of safeguards against corruption to avoid conscription or recruitment. 
  4. Political: includes transparency over defence & security policy, openness in defence budgets, and strength of anti-corruption checks surrounding arms exports. 
  5. Procurement: includes corruption risk around tenders and how contracts are awarded, the use of agents/brokers as middlemen in procurement, and assessment of how vulnerable a country is to corruption in offset contracts.  

These independent assessments go through multiple layers of expert review before each country is assigned an overall score and rank. This makes the GDI extremely rigorous in its methodology.  

The amount of work required to produce the GDI means the new country results will be released in six waves: 

  • Sub-Saharan Africa 
  • Middle East and North Africa 
  • Central and Eastern Europe 
  • Latin America 
  • Asia Pacific and South Asia 
  • Western Europe and North America 

The first wave is provisionally due to be published in early 2025.  

 

Notes: 

The GDI was previously known as the Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index (GI), with results published in 2013 and 2015. The Index underwent a major update for the 2020 version, including changes to the methodology and scoring underpinning the project. The 2025 results can be compared with those from 2020 to get a picture of global trends in defence governance, and which countries are improving. 

The GDI is a corruption risk assessment of the defence and security sector within a country, which assesses the quality of mechanisms used to manage corruption risk –and evaluating the factors that are understood to facilitate corruption. 

It is not a measurement of corruption and does not measure the amount of funds that are lost to corruption, identify corrupt actors, or estimate the perceptions of corruption in the defence & security sectors by the public. 

TI-DS has secured funding for the sub-Saharan African wave and is working towards securing additional support to cover the costs of producing the remaining five waves. We invite all stakeholders, including public agencies, multilateral organisations and INGOs, to get in touch via gdi@transparency.org to help support the remaining waves.