Are there effective measures in place for personnel found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption, and is there evidence that these measures are being carried out?
Algeria score: 100/100
Offences are not defined; no evidence of other formal mechanisms. Or the military are exempt from law.
Bribery and/or corruption are not defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector, but there are wider legal mechanisms in place (e.g. national laws supported by policies, regulations, or other laws) used to address this.
Bribery and/or corruption are defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector, but 2 or more of the following mechanisms are not provided for: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. Sanctions exist in law, but maximum penalties constitute less than 1 year imprisonment or weak fines that would not act as a deterrent.
Bribery and/or corruption are defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector, but 2 or more of the following mechanisms are not provided for: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.
There are a range of clearly defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector. These offences cover (at a minimum) offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.
Legal mechanisms to address bribery and corruption are in place under the Anti-corruption Law 06-01 (2006). In Section IV, several articles deal with corruption and bribery of public officials, which stipulate fines and penalties. For example, for corrupt public officials, the penalty includes imprisonment for a term of two to ten years and a fine of 200,000 to 1,000,000 DA. According to Art. 25, two of the four offences are codified. The first part of the article sanctions the act of offering or granting an advantage to a public official for him to perform or refrain from performing an act. Section two sanctions the act of a public official to soliciting or accepting an advantage for him to perform or refrain from performing an act related to the duties of the public official (1).
Although Law 06-01 (2006) does not explicitly refer to the defence institutions, the Statute of Military Personnel provides evidence that it does apply to the defence sector. According to Art. 69, military personnel are subject to the provisions of ordinary criminal law and the Code of Military Justice, and military members shall be liable to disciplinary, professional and/or statutory sanctions (2).
1) Law No. 06-01 (February 20, 2006), “Relative à la prevention et à la lute contre la corruption, Fourth Title “Incriminations, Sanctions and Means of Investigation”. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://www.interieur.gov.dz/index.php/fr/le-ministere/le-ministère/textes-legislatifs-et-reglementaires/40-le-dispositif-legal-regissant-la-wilaya-et-la-commune/397-la-loi-n°06-–-01-du-20-février-2006-relative-à-la-prévention-et-à-la-lutte-contre-la-corruption.html.
2) Order No. 06-02 (February 28, 2006), “General statute of military personnel”, Titel II “General Provision”, Chapter V “Discipline”, Art. 69 . Accessed November 7, 2018. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/73487/75113/F240300709/DZA-73487.pdf.
Algeria score: 50/100
There is a complete failure to investigate or prosecute, even in the face of clear evidence.
Instances of bribery or corruption are superficially investigated or rarely disclipined.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated but not often disciplined. There is clear undue influence in the decision making process.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated or disciplined through formal processes, but undue political influence is attempted and sometimes effective at derailing prosecutions.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated or disciplined through formal processes and without undue political influence.
There is evidence that measures are taken against members of the armed forces found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption. However, it is unclear yet if they are being pursued. In October 2018, five military generals were detained for alleged wrongdoings. They were accused of “squandering” public funds and “mismanagement”. According to the Algerian TV station Ennahar, they are being sued for unlawful enrichment and breach of trust in front of a military court. According to TSA, several hundred other soldiers of all ranks have also been charged for similar acts (1), (2). No information on the investigation could be found which would allow assessment on how investigations are undertaken. According to Art. 41 of the Code of Military Justice, the procedures during the investigation are secret (3). The latest report is the generals have been released while awaiting their trials by order of the President at the beginning of November (4). Since their trials have not yet taken place, no assessment on their hearings can be made. Some analysts have tied the cases to the upcoming presidential elections in 2019 and possible power struggles (1), which feeds suspicions that the cases are political. No other examples of generals being prosecuted for bribery or corruption have been found since 2016. In the reporting on the five generals, newspaper articles generally refer to the case of General Beloucif who embezzled money from the Department of National Defence’s coffers in the 1990s (2), (5).
1) “En Algérie, cinq anciens hauts responsables de l’armée incarcérés”, Le Monde, October 15, 2018. Accessed October 18, 2018. https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/10/15/en-algerie-cinq-anciens-hauts-responsables-de-l-armee-incarceres_5369499_3212.html.
2) Salim Mesbah. “Armée et corruption : la fin de l’impunité? tsa-algerie.com, October 14, 2018. Accessed October 18, 2018. https://www.tsa-algerie.com/armee-et-corruption-la-fin-de-limpunite/.
3) Code de Justice Militaire. Title I “Military Judicial Police, Right to Arrests”, Book II “Military Panel Procedure”, Art. 41, (2007). Accessed October 18, 2018. https://www.joradp.dz/TRV/FJustM.pdf.
4) Farid Alilat. “Algérie: les cinq généraux inculpés pour « corruption » remis en liberté”, jeuneafrique.com, November 5, 2018. Accessed November 14, 2018. https://www.jeuneafrique.com/658561/politique/algerie-les-cinq-generaux-inculpes-pour-corruption-remis-en-liberte/.
5) Salima Tlemcani. “Affaire des généraux-majors emprisonnés : L’establishment militaire ébranlé”, elwatan.com, October 16, 2018. Accessed November 14, 2018. https://www.elwatan.com/edition/actualite/affaire-des-generaux-majors-emprisonnes-lestablishment-militaire-ebranle-16-10-2018.
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||35a. Sanctions||35b. Enforcement|
|Algeria||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Angola||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cameroon||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Egypt||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Ghana||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Iraq||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Jordan||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Kuwait||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Lebanon||50 / 100||NEI|
|Mali||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Morocco||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Niger||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Nigeria||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Oman||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Palestine||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Qatar||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Tunisia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||50 / 100||25 / 100|