Does the country have a process for acquisition planning that involves clear oversight, and is it publicly available?

11a. Acquisition planning process


SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

11b. Transparency



Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

11c. External oversight



Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

No information on a defined process for acquisition planning was found during the research. There is no clear defence strategy published, for example, on the Ministry of Defence website (1), which could be connected to specific purchases. Policy analysis confirms that the Vice Defence Minister has not publicly spoken about a strategy (2). There are public statements about national threats namely organized crime and terrorism (3). With regards to the latest acquisitions, McGregor writes, the military equipment that Algeria has bought mainly from Russia is only partly useful for counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism and is better suited for defending the country against foreign countries (4).

Since there is no defined process for acquistion planning, this sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable. No information on the acquisition planning process could be found, i.e., the Ministry of Defence website (1). If there is any information available on acquisitions made, it can be found in the magazine of the armed forces which occasionally reports about acquisitions retrospectively. For example, the military notified the public about the inauguration/launching of a corvette in 2016 (2). The national media have retrospectively reported about acquisitions (3).

Since there is no defined process for acquistion planning, this sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable. No information on external oversight of the acquisition planning process could be found. The military has not allowed any civilian oversight over its affairs (1), (2), which makes it likely that no external oversight exists. No evidence could be found that the two chambers of the Algerian parliaments oversee the acquisition planning process (3) (4).

There is an internal acquisition planning process at the ministerial level, though it is not transparent and accessible to the public. The public company Simportex is tasked with investments and acquisition of goods and services for the defence and security sector (1). Despite being formally under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence, the company has reportedly long been under control of the President’s Security Bureau chief. Formal oversight is exercised through the state budget process in Parliament and the Audit Court (2). Though comprehensive data on the defence budget and acquisition planning is unavailable to the public, there are indications that due to the financial crisis in Angola since late 2014, off-budget spending in the defence sector has again increased (2).

Simportex has reportedly long been controlled by the long-time head of the President’s Security Bureau, General Manuel Hélder Vieira Dias “Kopelipa”. For example, in 2014, General “Kopelipa” allegedly sidelined Simportex to directly award army food delivery contracts to a company owned by a strawman. Under its 2018 organic statute, Simportex’s monopoly for service delivery, arms and military logistics procurement for the armed forces was reaffirmed (3).
According to a recent interview with the management board chair of Simportex, Luís Manuel Pizarro, budget constraints have led to increasing off-budget spending through additional credit lines that often imply direct contracts awards. Yet, Angolan media reports have accused Pizarro of complicity with the former head of the President’s Security Bureau, General “Kopelipa” (4).

The 2016 Public Procurement Law establishes that arms and military logistics procurement is classified as secret (Art. 7, 1, b) (1). The acquisition planning process of the state-owned procurement company Simportex is mostly non-public, though the audit court has published some opinions on contracts submitted by the company (2).

Oversight of the defence acquisition planning at the ministerial level is not transparent. Oversight by the Audit Court is limited to formal compliance with basic aspects of the public procurement law, and parliamentary oversight over the defence budget is limited (1), (2).

According to an Institute for Security Studies (ISS) (2017) report, “Reforming the security apparatus will be a challenge if Lourenco wants to streamline command and control and professionalise the sector … the fragility of the security apparatus needs to be addressed. Corruption and opaque arms procurement deals need to be curtailed; defence spending requires oversight.” (3).

Law N° 039 (2016) sets up the rules on the contract, the execution and the control of public orders and public service delegations that contractual authorities have agreed on with delegated authorities. It also makes a list of the different institutions which should abide by its provisions whenever they launch a call for offers for acquisition purposes. Indeed, this list includes the NA, ministries, public enterprises, diplomatic missions and consulates (1). Law N° 039 (2016), has also put in place the Authority for the Regulation of the Public Order (ARCOP), which coordinates all the procurement and contracting processes. To complement the provisions of the above law, the Ministry of Finance has initiated the Decree N° 0049 (2017) on the procedures of contracting, executing and regulating public services; it entered into force on February 1, 2017 (2).

Law N° 039 (2016) organizes acquisitions for government institutions, including the defence ministry (1). Article 19 of the law imposes planning requirements for acquisitions for all government institutions, including the defence ministry. Article 20 imposes a publication of an announcement enumerating all items that it intends to purchase for the budget year in question. Finally, Article 21 imposes the publication of all calls for bidders/contractors, if not it is not posted it becomes null and void (1). There is no evidence of a connection between purchases made and defence strategy requirements.

There are irregularities in public acquisition processes. According to the General Controller of State, Mr. Luc Marius Ibriga, some public agents have refused to make necessary documents available that should have allowed state controllers to proceed during the 2016 control session (1). Ibriga goes further stating that many agents involved in procurement often presented to state controllers fabricated documents made during or after the control process, to hide fake acquisitions. To mitigate these fraudulent issues, the general state controller states that his institution will no longer take into account justification documents presented after a control (1). In any case, the government has already been criticized more than once for not making information available (2), and for not enforcing the law, continually persisting in covering up officials involved in the misuse of public funds (3).

The key external oversight institution is the ASCE-LC, which was recently provided with both independence and the constitutional power to investigate and directly prosecute cases of corruption taking place within institutions (1). However, there is no evidence that it has sufficient resources to exercise this independence. In any case, it is more likely to face the government’s lack of collaboration as with regards to information sharing and law enforcement, as well as the lack of collaboration of agents managing public affairs at overseeing institutions (1), (2), (3), (4). According to the Business Anti-Corruption Portal, (2018), “poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institution, have made the fight against corruption all the most difficult.” Oversight institution (Parliament, ASCE-LC or the Supreme Audit Institution), are all given power by the constitution to scrutinize public acquisitions made by government institutions, including the defence ministry. However, the opacity of the armed forces does not favour the work of these institutions (5). Therefore, these oversight functions simply review the figures or check that the internal audit has reviewed the figures.

Defence purchases are not publicly known [1]. The laws governing procurement including PPPs in Cameroon are currently governed by Law No. 2006/012 of 29 December 2006, enacting the general regulations of Partnership Contracts [2]; Decree No. 2008/035 of 23 January 2008, organising and creating the National Partnership Contracts Support Council – Conseil d’Appui à la Réalisation des Contrats de Partenariat, CARPA [3]; and Decree No. 2008/0115/PM of 24 January 2008 regulating Law No. 2006/012 [4].

Other applicable laws and regulations are: Law No. 2008/009 of 16 July 2008, enacting the accounting, financial, and tax system applicable to partnership contracts [5]; Order No. 186/CAB/PM of 15 November 2011, to fix terms and conditions for the collection of fees payable for partnership contracts [6], and Decree No. 2012/148 of 21 March 2012 [7], to amend and supplement certain provisions of Decree No. 2008/035 of 23 January 2008 relating to the organisation and functioning of the National Partnership Contracts Support Council [3]. However, defence purchases are not publicly known.

Because there is no process for acquisition planning, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Because there is no process for acquisition planning, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

The government has instituted an annual acquisition plan for the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior, which is derived from a newly introduced 5-year planning cycle (Loi de Programmation Militaire, LPM). The 5-year roadmap (feuille de route) does not provide a breakdown of spending details. The NA, via the Commission de Sécurité et de Défense (CSD), is nominally tasked with oversight.

According to Ivorian Vice-President Daniel Kablan Duncan, the Loi de Programmation Militaire (LPM) serves to codify the government’s policy goals in terms of expenditure in defence and security, as well as the budgeting of personnel, equipment and operations at the Armed Forces of Côte d’Ivoire (Forces Républicaines de Côte d’Ivoire, FRCI), the Gendarmerie Nationale and the Police Nationale. [These last two are technically under the Ministry of the Interior] (1).

“The first of its kind in Côte d’Ivoire, the law on military programming was adopted on 4 January 2016. Over the period 2016-2020, the text intends to reform the Ivorian defence in depth. The long-term goal is to adapt the army to the current realities of the country. The program is endowed in accordance with its objectives: no less than 2,000 billion FCFA (3.8 billion euros) have been budgeted through 2020, mainly to pay for the modernization and purchase of equipment, but especially for reshaping the workforce (2). The LPM 2016-2020 has allocated a total of 2.254 billion FCFA (EUR 3.4 billion). It is seen as a political signal about where defence expenditure is headed. It also reflects the regulatory changes introduced by the Réforme du Secteur de la Sécurité (RSS, SSR) in 2011-2015, including the drafting of a national security strategy. By end-2017, more than 1,000 soldiers had agreed to early retirement as part of a budgetary rationalization effort at the Ministry of Defence linked to LPM 2016-2020 (1), (3), (4).

A similar roadmap for expenditure at the Ministry of the Interior (Loi No. 2016-09, Portant programmation des Forces de Sécurité Intérieure pour les années 2016-2020) was published in the Official Journal on 17 March 2016. (5) Known as the LPSI, it outlines the budgetary guidelines for the Ministry of the Interior, including:
– Police Nationale.
– Douanes.
– Direction Générale des Affaires Maritimes et Portuaires, des Eaux et des Forêts.
– Office National de la Protection Civile.

The main guidelines of the newly introduced Loi de Programmation Militaire (LPM), the military expenditure roadmap, have been widely reported by Ivorian media. But details of expenditure are reported in highly aggregated form. For example, total expenditure over five years in LPM 2016-2020 has been made public (2.254 billion FCFA; EUR 3.4 billion), as well as the amount allocated to acquisitions of equipment (EUR 1.2 billion). But the exact itemized expenditure seems to be excluded from publication. According to Ivorian media, the LPM is a step forward in transparency and accountability in the defence and security sectors. For example, the current LPM 2016-2020 is, in theory, readily accessible to the public for consultation. It is also, in theory, subject to NA oversight and a way for government defence policy to be examined beyond military institutions (1).

According to the Paris-based Le Point, a weekly magazine, the current LPM 2016-2020 foresees defence and security equipment acquisitions of EUR 1.2 billion. There is no breakdown of the expenditure over the 4-year cycle (2). Some details about acquisitions included in the LPM 2016-2020 have been unveiled by Ivorian media, such as the spending on armed vehicles, combat helicopters and drones, among others (3).
“Over four years, the government has planned to purchase 515 light and armored vehicles for its ground forces, two drones, two combat helicopters, troop transports and rehabilitation, and the construction of army barracks.” Another aspect of acquisition planning at the Ministry of Defence that can be qualified as non-transparent is the “donation” of equipment by other nations, particularly China. The MoD reported on its website on July 17, 2017, that China had delivered its 4th naval ship to the Ivorian Navy (4).

In theory, external oversight of the LPM involves the Lower House via its Commission de Sécurité et de Défense (CSD). As Curtis writes:

“Clearly, it is not enough to pass a law on a specific subject to ensure that it is effectively taken into account, which is why it is more important than ever that the two ministries that have the responsibility of executing the promulgated laws also have the mechanisms to monitor and evaluate their implementation. It will be up to the National Assembly, through its specialized committees, to monitor the chapters of defense and security in the execution of their respective laws” (1).

According to our sources, there is acquisition planning in place, but it is not clear, and it has no defined processes or procedures. Furthermore, acquisition planning has no connection with strategic defensive needs. Acquisition planning is based more on political and personal wills and needs rather than what the defence sector/strategy requires (1), (2), (3), (4).

Law No. 14 (1967) prohibits the publishing or broadcasting of any information or news about the armed forces and its formations, movement, armaments and personnel, and everything related to the military and strategic aspects except after obtaining written approval from the director of the military intelligence department. Therefore, even if an acquisition planning process exists, the law would prohibit the publishing of any related information except that which is approved by the director of military intelligence (1).

As explained in 11A, it is unclear whether there is a clear and defined acquisition planning process to determine whether it is subject to external oversight. However, there is no external oversight on the issue related to the acquisition and procurement of arms. For example, Article 77 of Law no. 182 (2018) allows the MoD, MMP and the MoI to conduct procurement through limited or local tenders, limited practices or direct contracting (1), (2), (3). Moreover, Law no. 147 (1964) exempts all arms contracts from taxes, fees, and most importantly from financial regulation and scrutiny, and monitoring by both the CAA and the Ministry of Finance (4).

The acquisition planning cycle is regulated by the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) (1), (2) which was subsequently amended by the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 914) which established the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) (3). The PPA is mandated to “regulate, assess and ensure full compliance” of state institutions with the Act. The act applies to the security services and Ministry of Defence, including the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) (4).

According to the Public Procurement Act, each procurement entity shall establish a Tender Committee (Art. 17.1) to “(a) ensure that at every stage of the procurement activity, procedures prescribed in this Act have been followed; (b) exercise sound judgment in making procurement decisions; and (c) refer to the appropriate Tender Review Board for approval, any procurement above its approval threshold, taking into consideration the fact that approval above the Entity Committee is a one stop only approval” (Art.17.2) (3). Within the MOD there are two committees, the Tender Committee and the Audit Committee; while the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) has a Tender Committee (5).

Information on the acquisition planning process is not publicly available. The MOD’s budget includes information on the procurement activity (1), (2), (3), (4).

The PPA is the regulatory body responsible for implementing and enforcing compliance of the procurement laws, regulations, manuals, and guidelines and ensuring that all public entities comply with the various procurement legislations (1).

The current government established the Office of the Minister for Public Procurement to advise the president on matters of public procurement and with the aim of “building and sustaining efficiency in the Public Procurement System of Ghana in accordance with International Best Standards and Practices” (2). Additionally, the Audit Service has also functions of oversight over the MOD procurement process whereas the Special Budget Committee can approve or reject the MOD budget. However, long term planning is not well-conceived as part of comprehensive strategic planning (3), (4), (5). Overall, there are no clear external powers that have significant influence over acquisition planning.

Acquisition plans for defence requirements are not published by defence institutions or their online platforms. Details on costs, scheduling and management are similarly absent from public debate and press coverage. While the latter may not offer firm evidence of the absence of planning, or discussions around objectives of even unpublished plans/advanced planning. Present-day discussions are limited to expressions of intent to purchase foreign equipment from allies and MoD-led efforts to restructure the army (1), (2), (3), and protect borders from infiltration. Iraq’s existing NSS pertains no information explicit to planning. As the previous version of this assessment notes, quoting the OECD’s 2010 report on procurement; “the lack of public procurement planning that is linked to the more general problem in planning and can partly be justified by the Iraqi context” (4). In corroboration of this, an Iraqi military affairs expert (5) cited “capacity shortfalls” as far as the acquisition is concerned, due to funding shortages and the MoD’s ability to release only parts of its investment budget” (5). In the absence of acquisition marketing or relevant discussions, it appears that planning has not improved, owing to Iraq’s uncertain security situation.

There is not a high degree of transparency within the field of acquisition planning. Its absence may imply that plans do exist but are not published; however, years of mismanagement, misallocation and disappearance of funds also present sound evidence of no planning. While Iraq has a variety of national defence colleges (1) it is unclear if, after 2003, acquisition planning was incorporated. into their taught curriculum. It is fair to conclude that there is no rolling strategy for defence acquisition.

Since there is no process for acquisition planning, this sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

There is no defined process for acquisition planning in most of governmental departments and ministries in Jordan. However, research has shown that part of the U.S military assistance to Jordan, has been the development of a five-year procurement plan for the Jordanian Armed Forces [1]. The public, however, has no access to this plan and it is not available online. A report by the SIGMA in 2016 suggested that there is no clear public acquisition strategy [2], and it seems that this has not changed since then.

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because, despite the availability of the SIGMA/OECD corruption risk assessment of public procurement in Jordan [1], there is no evidence that the public has access to comprehensive information around procurement or acquisition, particularly weapons and military equipment [2, 3,4]. The government does post some information about tenders on the Government Tenders Directorate however, these lack detail [5].

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because, although Jordan has an Audit Bureau that is supposed to audit several governmental entities, [1] it is not mandated to audit the Armed Forces. There is also no evidence of the Audit Bureau carrying out assessments or overseeing actual acquisition planning, and thus far their work seems to be focused on reviewing general figures and identifying discrepancies in these figures. The Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission could also provide external oversight over acquisition planning [2], however, there was no plan in the first place.

Acquisition falls under the financial policies of the defence and interior ministries, which are completely shaped by the heads of these ministries, according to article 27 of the police’s law (1) and 24 of the military’s law (2). The current interior and defence ministers have followed in the footsteps of their predecessors and made no moves to reveal any information to the public about their acquisition planning policy, according to auditing officials.

However, there is internal acquisition planning, but it is not separated into budget, finance and commercial, officials said (3,4). These ministries also make almost no links between purchases and strategic goals.

Also, the purchases of “defence materials” made by these institutions are not subject to the oversight of the Public Tenders Authority, according to article 2 of Law no. 29 of 2016 for public tenders (5).

Defence purchases, including the Government guide of doing business in Kuwait, include all weapons, communications and monitoring systems related to defence and security. There are internal policies regulating these purchases but the Government admits that they are “more flexible” than the ones applied by the PTA and not available to the public (6).

SAB and ACA officials have the right to review all the details related to acquisition planning but they often do not get the full story, and the auditors usually accept that and make no attempt to refer the matter to the prosecution, because they believe, like many others, that there is no real political will to fight corruption (4 and 5).

Article 80 of the SAB’s laws even demands that ministries with secret spending present reports every three months about these projects, which should plainly state how much money has been spent and should come with a personal statement from the minister in question vowing that the funds were spent according to the approved plan (7). This power is, however, somewhat diminished by the article 78, which allows the SAB’s chief to reduce the amount of records to be reviewed by the auditors by up to 50 percent.

The SAB chief however, does not tell the Government agencies that are being partly exempted that they are receiving less scrutiny.

The ACA can only investigate if it received a tip or complaint, or if there was public anger over some incident.

Security agencies in Kuwait do not publish or announce most of the purchases they make. They only seem to announce big Western warplane deals, presumably because these are already likely to get attention in the West, according to journalists, activists and officials (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). But these announcements never officially justify the purchase or reveal information about the timeline of the deal, the mechanisms of the equipment or the desired or expected outcomes of the deal.

These agencies religiously ignore information requests from regular citizens and activists, but they do provide them to Parliament, in private sessions, they said.

Parliament has the right to assess the country’s long-term acquisition plan, its legitimacy and expected efficacy, according to PIL article 76 and 147 (1), but their assessments and recommendations can be ignored since the Emir can easily dissolve the chamber if it tries to pressure his security agencies into accepting them. Generally, however, Parliament approves these plans without giving it much thought for the reasons addressed in the answer to Q 1 A, officials said (2, 3 and 4).

There is also external oversight from SAB, but that is mostly concerned with reviewing figures and checking that the internal auditors have done the same. Even behind closed doors, SAB officials almost never comment on the legitimacy or soundness of the plans these ministries make, officials and activists said (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). ACA’s mandate also include the defence and interior ministries but their auditors are frequently stonewalled, a senior ACA official said (2 and 6). ACA auditors are not treated as well as the SAB because they are new and have no experience with security. As a result, the ACA does not have a solid assessment of these plans.

Also, ACA auditors are only allowed to review records when they are investigating a specific case.

The LAF’s J5 (Planning Directorate) and J4 (Logistics Directorate) operate with significant synergy and coherence on acquisition planning processes (1). With the absence of a defence strategy, the directorates cooperated to create the CDPs, which are not publically available, for the Rome conferences to help support the LAF – since the defence budget renders the military unable to purchase and equipment to improve the military capability (1), (2). This reflects enhanced acquisition and systems integration training, and an increased emphasis on developing the LAF’s integrated planning capability. The development of the acquisition process has occurred gradually over the 2010 to 2019 timeframe due to (3), (4), (5). Equipment delivered and military assistance is often made public (6).

The LAF’s J4 does not proactively publish the entire acquisition process and the justification of purchases, lines of responsibility, timelines, mechanisms, and outcomes (1). However, the process is not transparent, it is indirectly visible through partner nations and defence news outlets publish the acquisition process (2), (3).

External oversight towards long term acquisition plans, their legitimacy and likelihood of their appropriateness is done superficially. Donations that are sent to the LAF are approved by the CoM and then sent to the MoD (1). According to interviewee two and four, The LAF presented the CDP for the Defence, Interior, Municipalities’ Parliamentary Committee for one session. However, the LAF did not provide the members with the document. The presentation occurred after the committee requested it (2), (3).

The LOPM provides for USD2.3 billion of investment for the armed forces and is set to recruit an additional 10,000 personnel between 2015 and 2019. The full text of the document is not available on any government website, but various news articles provide a rough overview of the spending plans. The plan states that the defence ministry will purchase helicopters, aeroplanes and uniforms with the money, but none of the media articles specify how many or at what precise cost. The purpose for the acquisitions is evident given the failings of the Malian armed forces in 2012 and the ongoing threat of terrorism in the north. Securing large swathes of the centre and north of the country is still a pressing necessity for the armed forces given the persistently high number of attacks by jihadist groups. However, there is no evidence that the internal functions of acquisition planning are separated.
Moreover, a senior security governance expert told the assessor that while the LOPM does offer a rough outline of defence purchases and overall spending, it is “far too broad and generic”.³ The security professional said this also the view of ECOWAS, which is trying to ensure that all member states have a more results-based programme of defence spending by 2020. The same interviewee also noted that the life cycle of maintenance costs is often more expensive than the initial purchase, yet there is simply no evaluation of such costs by the Malian defence ministry: “There is a lack of forward planning and lack of vision”. Equipment is purchased without its related spare parts being acquired at the same time, “which is why FAMa currently has two new planes that cannot fly”.

The military in Mali holds a highly privileged position compared with other sectors when determining the allocation of resources. Arms acquisition requests are required to include neither justification nor full costing. Hence why it was possible for the government to overspend on military equipment by about CFA40 billion in 2014.² This glaring example highlights that the following analysis from SIPRI, from over ten years ago, still holds true for present-day Mali.
SIPRI’s study from 2006 notes that “the full financial implications of arms-acquisition decisions, including debt incurred for military purposes, are often not reflected in budgets, which may eventually destabilise financial policy. This sort of behaviour contributes to the widespread problem in Africa of military budgets that cannot fully fund the defence function”.¹
A senior security governance expert told the assessor that while the LOPM does offer a rough outline of defence purchases and overall spending, it is “far too broad and generic”.³ The security professional said this also the view of ECOWAS, which is trying to ensure that all member states have a more results-based programme of defence spending by 2020. The same interviewee also noted that the life cycle of maintenance costs is often more expensive than the initial purchase, yet there is simply no evaluation of such costs by the Malian defence ministry: “There is a lack of forward planning and lack of vision”. Equipment is purchased without its related spare parts being acquired at the same time, “which is why FAMa currently has two new planes that cannot fly”.

A member of the National Assembly’s Defence and Security Committee told the assessor that not only did the CDSPC scrutinise the LOPM, but that every year the government has to present a list of its purchases to enable the committee to check that they conform with the needs outlined in the LOPM.³
However, the way in which parliament was entirely side-lined in the acquisition of the presidential jet (see evidence in 10A) and military vehicles (see Q63) highlights how the assembly’s formal oversight function can be bypassed.

No evidence of a publicly available defined process for acquisition planning was found in official sources such as websites of the Moroccan government or ministries. It must also be noted that Moroccan authorities do not communicate at all on defence matters (except in very rare circumstances such as on the occasion of the signing of military cooperation treaties with other countries and in broad statements about territory integrity and sovereignty that, although linked to the military, do not refer in detail to the functioning of the Moroccan armed forces). Moreover, it must be noted that the Ministry of Defence does not have a website (unlike other Ministries), and that there is no outline of the Moroccan government’s military vision on the website of the Moroccan government (contrary to the visions for the Ministries of Housing, Transport, Agriculture, Tourism, Environment, Education and Fishing). In detail, the Moroccan Code of Public Procurement Contracts makes the army exempt from a certain number of conditions (1), including:
– Procurement contracts for the army can be processed without prior publicity or bid for tenders (Article 86).
– The same applies for architectural consultancy (Article 129).
– Article 171 states that the National Defence Administration is exempt from a number of conditions, including budget restraints (Article 6), publicising offers (Articles 17, 36, 46, 63, 104 and 121), publicising their programme, publicising their market achievement report and a number of other documents (Article 147), use of electronic exchange procedures for documents and reverse electronic bids (Articles 148, 149 and 151), market audits and controls (Article 165), control over military equipment, weaponry and ammunition procurement contracts (Article 156). Also, some military procurement contracts can result from a restricted bid to tenders without a budget limit, or the establishment of an administrative certificate.

No mention of a process was found in other sources, such as reports from NGOs, or the Moroccan and foreign press. No interviewee was willing or available to speak on the matter, including individuals working for state-owned entities. Although it is not explicitly clear that there is no defined process for acquisition planning, it is definitely not publicly available.

There is no transparency surrounding the acquisition planning process.

No evidence of a national or foreign body in charge of externally overseeing the acquisition planning process was found:

The mandate of institutions responsible for budgetary control and acquisition planning in general does not include military spending. This has been illustrated lately in the 2018 Public Finance Report for the years 2016-2017, which does not mention military spending, although it does not explicitly exclude defence matters from its preview (1). Press coverage of the National Audit Office’s (Cour des Comptes) latest report does not mention military matters anywhere (2).

The government has a process for acquisition planning as a result of the programming act of the Ministry of Defence. According to art. 20 of the 2013 decree on defence and security procurement, there is an annual acquisition. It is drawn from the needs identified by relevant technical departments of the Ministry of Defence. The plan must be drawn up no later than the end of January of the current budget year, but it is flexible and regularly updated (1). It is not available to the public and is classified as “top secret” (1). According to an interviewee, one of the general problems of the military expenditure is a disequilibrium between the resources allocated to military equipment, on the one hand, and resources allocated for their maintenance, on the other (2).
From data that could be sourced, it is not evident if internal functions are separated by budget, commercial and finance.

According to art. 20 of the 2013 Decree on defence and security procurement, the acquisition plan is not subject to publication and is classified as “top secret”. All correspondence regarding the project is to be carried out exclusively by “confidential mail” (1). In line with that provision, article 7 of the 2016 Niger Code for Public Procurements excludes goods, equipment, supplies and services related to defence and security (2). According to some analysts, the scale of renewal and modernisation of Nigerien military equipment is “impressive” (3). Some information regarding military equipment purchases or gifts from international partners may be available to the public through the media.

Given the confidentiality of the procurement procedures (1), it is unlikely that the acquisition plan is subject to any oversight. The plan is not subject to legislative scrutiny by the Security and Defence Committee (2). In general, the Niger legislature provides only limited oversight during the planning and implementation stage of the budget cycle (3). Furthermore, in the context of the rapid rise in internal and external threats since 2012, as well as the unstable security situation, the regular and systematic oversight mechanisms may have been disrupted.

There is an existing process for acquisition planning in the ministries and parastatals. This involves parliamentary oversight and appropriations are made public. Sanusi [2011:192] details the process of procurement in the Ministry of Defence as initiated by the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Navy, Nigerian Air Force or the civil departments, advertisements, pre- qualification, bid opening, and award process, as well as dues processes conducted by the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit [BMPIU] and the Resident Due Process Team [RDPT]. The contract agreement and the Military Due Process Certification[MDPC] are sent to the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation for the final procurement process [Omitogun: 2006] [1].

However, there has been no coordination between purchases and strategic defence requirements. This has been highlighted over many years and has still not been rectified since the last report was published in 2006 [2]. A review of the 2015 report of the Nigerian National Defence Plan Committee has been carried out and the report has been delivered to the Minister of Defence. However, the details of the report were not shared with the public and the Minister of Defence merely made a public commitment to implement most of the recommendations of the 2016 report. The government recently entered negotiations with the USA to acquire some Tucano aircraft, the basis of the acquisition was stated to be the insurgency in the North East and no direct reference was made to the National Defence Strategy or Policy. The principal reason given for the acquisition was the insurgency in the North east and not a Defence Policy [Omitogun: 2006] [1]. The army, navy and air force each has a planning board that assess the needs of the services. These reports are then submitted to the Joint Services Department of the MOD for harmonization, instead to the National Assembly [Omitogun: 2006] [1].
As was noted in the PLAC assessment the National Assembly are not consulted in relation to weapons acquisitions. Also noted is that NASS does not play any key role in military expenditure particularly defence procurement contracts [PLAC JULY 2017] pg.50 [3]. Some military expenditure have been excluded from the appropriations law on the grounds of national security.

There is no transparency in the defence acquisition process. This has been highlighted over many years and has still not been rectified since the last report was published in 2006. Further, the Public Procurement Act of 2007 as it currently stands does not apply to defence planning or expenditure as it is expressly excluded in the statute subject to presidential discretion (1).

Some military expenditure tends to be ad hoc (1). Where parliamentary oversight is exercised it tends to be superficial and examines basic budget performance. There is little to no oversight about long term acquisition planning. NASS does not appear to be involved in oversight of long term acquisition planning (1), (2). This is also tied to the failure of not having a long term defence strategy plan that is operational. There is no legitimacy to the acquisition planning process, as there is no supervision by external oversight bodies (2). Further, the Office of the Auditor-General failed to submit reports in previous years. It is unclear if reports have been submitted for 2016-2017 (1). However, the NASS has severely criticised the Office of the Auditor-General for failing to submit reports in previous years. Further, there are considerable delays to the submission of reports. “To this end, committee slammed the Auditor-General of the Federation for what it described as gross negligence on audited annual reports of Ministries, Departments and Agencies, MDAs, of the federal government from 2009 to 2014. Consequently, it ordered the Auditor-General to issue clearance certificates to government agencies which annual audited reports had been cleared” (1).

Acquisition planning is in place, but it is not clear as it is an internal process, not public, nor has a clear oversight. Acquisition planning does not inform the defence strategy (1), (2). The largest tender board in Oman is used across ministries; however, the Ministry of Defence and Royal Oman Police (as well as Petroleum Development Oman) have separate tender boards (3). According to export.gov, a US-based website advising US exporting firms, the tender board operates openly and transparently (3). The Ministry of Defence website states, “Tender module will be coming soon” (4). Neither the police nor defence websites make any reference to defined processes of acquisition planning. If it exists, it is not publicly available (4), (5). The Tender Board website has annual reports up to 2014 and references tenders granted in September 2018; one of which deals with medical supplies, while the other deals with construction and fishing (6). No mention on this website is made regarding defence or police acquisition planning processes (6).

The acquisition planning process is not transparent as most of it is single-sourced, or politically motivated in case of weapons purchases. There is no media coverage or any information available to the public with regards to acquisition planning. It is considered confidential information (1), (2). As established in sub-indicator 11A, no reference is made to acquisitions in defence and security on either the Royal Oman Police or the Ministry of Defence websites (3), (4). One news report on the Royal Oman Police website, from June 2015, concerning contracting for medical equipment and furniture acquisition for a new police hospital was published (5). This news item clearly states that all tenders are sealed stating, “the Royal Oman Police “DGPM” is not bound to accept any tender received and reserves the right to reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons” (5). This news report demonstrates that it is clear that there is no transparency with tenders regarding the Royal Oman Police. No mention on the general Tender Board website is made to defence or police acquisition planning, which according to the US export.org, “is the largest, though not exhaustive, a compilation of open government tenders and is updated on a regular basis” (6). Any mention of acquisitions by Oman army is found on foreign websites, there is no detail of the processes of acquisition undergone (7), (8).

There is no external or internal oversight in the acquisition planning process. In most cases, defence purchases and acquisitions, they go through a single source without internal oversight or scrutiny (1), (2). As established in sub-indicator 11A, a tender board exists across ministries; however, it does not oversee independent tender processes within ministries which have separate tender processes, these include the Ministry of Defence and Royal Police of Oman (3). As stated in the above indicator, the Omani police website emphasises decisions on tenders are made internally and are not subject to external scrutiny (4). The Ministry of Defence website does not refer to the acquisition planning process, the absence in information is thus extended to external oversight (5). As discussed in question 1B, the Al-Shura (parliament) has no mandate to discuss issues of national security, and cannot act as an external oversight to acquisition planning processes in the sectors of defence and security (6).

There is a general acquisition structure that follows the guidelines of the MoF. The process starts with the unit up to the head of the National Forces Office, and there it is approved and channelled to the MoF which manages acquisitions (1). The acquisition of ammunition and other weaponry does not go through this process as these resources are gifts from other countries. There are unsubstantiated rumours that the acquisition of resources is channelled towards specific people who have connections with the heads of the security apparatuses or other high-rank personalities (2).

The process is managed and directed internally, with no public transparency (1).

According to the law, the State Audit and Administrative Bureau (SACCB) is responsible for auditing all parties, including the security services (2). However, according to the military auditing department, there is no functional external oversight other than the MoF department that is designated to audit the financial affairs of the military and security agencies(1).

After consulting official governmental websites, including the Ministry of Finance and the Qatari Government’s Communications Office, it became apparent that there is no publicly available process for acquisition planning that involves clear oversight [1,2]. Research has also revealed that the Ministry of Defence does not have a website, and there is no available information on defence policies in Qatar. Our information reveals that there is no planning process that includes clean oversight mechanisms. There is a process of acquisition planning in place, yet there is no oversight mechanism, and it is not available publicly [3,4].

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as there is no defined process for acquisition planning.

Occasionally, media platforms provide some information on arm deals that Qatar concludes with international governments such as the UK, France and Turkey. [1,2] This news, however, is mostly available in English and on non-Qatari media platforms. On occasion, the Minister of Defence Dr Khalid Al-Attiyah has discussed arm deals during interviews with journalists. The information available on such arm deals include, for example, the type of defence equipment that has been purchased and its price, rather than the process through which a deal was concluded [3,4]. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Qatari arms purchases have increased by 282% since 2012, but there is not much information about how such purchases were made or the processes that were followed in relation to the purchases. [5] There is no transparency of the acquisition planning process. Furthermore, the information that is there, is not publicly available. Data on sporadic purchases made is available.

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as there is no defined process for acquisition planning.

The State Audit Bureau and the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority, established through Emiri Decree No. 75 in 2011, do not have the authority to provide oversight for the Ministry of Defence or the Armed Forces. [1,2] According to our sources, a member from the Ministry of Finance (Auditing) may be part of the committees but has no legal or authoritative power. Therefore, there are no external oversight units or organisations (3,4).

According to our resources and experts in the field, Saudi Arabia has recently developed a process of acquisition planning as part of the procurement system; however, because the procurement system is new, the process is not clear and in some cases is “messy”. Additionally, purchases and the system are not linked with the defence strategy and do not rely on needs assessments, particularly huge and strategic purchases (1), (2). However, the country does not appear to have a defined system for acquisition planning, with military spending accounting for a disproportionate amount of the total budget, which itself is largely based on oil revenues (3). Military and defence spending in Saudi Arabia is typically linked to regional politics. For example, the country projected a 6.7% rise in defence spending in 2017 to SAR 191 billion ($50.8 billion) amidst the war it is leading in Yemen, the stated aims of which include containing its regional rival Iran (4).

According to the Gulf-focused academic Steffen Hertog, recent developments in Saudi Arabia indicate that routine procurement is supposed to become more rule-bound and transparent if only to reduce opportunities for rent-seeking on lower levels and by family branches of the Al Saud who have lost out in recent power struggles. There is a general move across government to modernize procurement, and some of the anti-corruption drives behind this seem serious. All of this does not mean that large and politically sensitive contracts will be dealt with in a purely technocratic fashion, geo-strategic and personal considerations will continue to play an important role, but decision-making around them will be much more centralized, with less opportunity for peripheral royal or military players to act as spoilers and take cuts at various levels (5).

This sub-indicator has been scored Not Applicable because there is no defined process for acquisition planning.

The Saudi government does not disclose details of its acquisition planning process. According to our sources, the MoD will not disclose any information about future or current acquisitions. Such information and confidential and categorized (1), (2). The country has also recently incorporated two military industry bodies that will have a key role in the procurement process, the General Authority for Military Industries in August 2017, and the Saudi Arabian Military Industries in May 2017 (3), (4). However, it is unclear whether this will lead to more transparency in these processes.
According to a Gulf affairs expert, “The establishment of GAMI and SAMI will lead to a more formalized process of acquisition, following the example of the UAE and there is likely to be a cut in corruption in the process too altogether a more rational process, but it is unlikely to involve clear and transparent oversight, directions will be handed down and implemented without challenge or scrutiny (5).”

This sub-indicator has been scored Not Applicable because there is no defined process for acquisition planning.

Military acquisition decisions are made more or less unilaterally by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who also serves as the minister of defence (1), (2), (3), and are thus not subject to external oversight. The abovementioned SAMI, for instance, is reportedly steered by an inter-ministerial committee chaired by the crown prince (4). According to a legal expert with insight on regional armed forces, “there is not necessarily any external oversight in place following the establishment of SAMI and GAMI, but at least a form of ‘checks and balances’ inside the government apparatus when it comes to buying military equipment” (5). Another source, a consultant who works with the Saudi defence sector, stated that though changes to Saudi military procurement strategy are ongoing, and GAMI is likely to have oversight over Saudi defence procurement, the crown prince is the ultimate authority behind both SAMI and GAMI and the procurement process as a whole (6).

There is a clear process for acquisition planning in place. According to Decree n°1039-2014 dated 13 March 2014, Organising Public Procurement, the public purchaser is required at the start of each year to develop an annual public procurement plan following the draft budget according to a standard model and a defined timetable(1,2). This plan must be compatible with the appropriations allocated and notified for information to the competent procurement control commissions within a period not exceeding the end of February of each year. The public purchaser must, compulsorily and free of charge, publish the provisional plan on the national public procurement website no later than 30 days before the beginning of the procurement procedures, except in cases of duly justified imperative (3). According to article 2 of Decree n°3013-2008 dated 12 September 2008, there is a specialised organism within the General Directorate of Financial and Administrative Affairs, which is the Directorate of Budgeting, Programming and Control responsible for carrying out the duty of preparing the Ministry’s budget, capital management and financial plan’s implementation (4). Based on our sources, the procurement in general has very little connection to the defence plan. (1,2)

According to our sources, there is limited information available for the public or oversight agencies on the acquisition and acquisition planning, this information is in abstract form(1,2). A review of the procurement plans published on the national public procurement website shows that limited information is availbale. This information is related to procurement plans produced by entities from the Ministry of Defence (Centre National de la Cartographie et de la Télédétection, Office de Développment de Régime Maatoug, Office des logements militaires) (3).

Oversight mechanisms exist during the annual budget preparation process and involve specialised departments from the Ministry of Finance and the Presidency of Government. When it comes to execution, the expenses related to procurement are subject to oversight, control and visa for approval of public expenditure control services (1,2,3). There is no oversight of needs requirement or procurement strategy (2,3). A unit of management by objectives is created at the Ministry of National Defence for the realisation of the project of reform of the management of the State budget. The unit is under the authority of the Minister of National Defence (4).

The defence sector in the UAE does not have a defined process for acquisition planning. The Office of the Crown Prince is responsible for major acquisition planning (1), (2).

This sub-indicator is marked NA because the UAE does not have a defined process for acquisition planning. There is no transparency concerning the acquisition planning process within the defence sector in the UAE. According to our sources, in some cases, the armed forces are informed of the acquisition of specific weapons, after the Office of the Crown Prince finalized the contract negotiation and/or acquisition terms (1), (2).

This sub-indicator is marked NA because the UAE does not have a defined process for acquisition planning. The defence sector is not subject to any oversight or scrutiny, and in general, it has its own internal procedures. There is an internal auditing department and an oversight committee, but it is inactive in most cases as assessment and acquisition planning usually occur within the Office of the Crown Prince (1), (2).

Country Sort by Country 11a. Acquisition planning process Sort By Subindicator 11b. Transparency Sort By Subindicator 11c. External oversight Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 NA NA
Angola 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Burkina Faso 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Cameroon 0 / 100 NA NA
Cote d'Ivoire 25 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Egypt 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Ghana 25 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Iraq 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Jordan 0 / 100 NA NA
Kuwait 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Lebanon 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Mali 25 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Niger 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Oman 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Qatar 0 / 100 NA NA
Saudi Arabia 0 / 100 NA NA
Tunisia 50 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
United Arab Emirates 0 / 100 NA NA

With thanks for support from the UK Department for International Development and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2020