Are sources of defence income other than from central government allocation (from equipment sales or property disposal, for example) published and scrutinised?

15a. Transparency


SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

15b. Institutional scrutiny


SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

15c. Public scrutiny


SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

No publication on other defence income was found during the research, for example, on the Ministry of Defence website (1). Newspaper reports are claiming that the armed forces plan to sell items produced in their factories on the civil market, including vehicles (2) (3). No further information on potential revenues was found.

There is no specific information on institutional scrutiny of defence income that is not from the central government. The military operates in a very secretive manner and no information on an internal auditing office could be found on the armed forces website (1). A review of laws and decrees issued since 2016 did not provide any evidence that such an office was established during the last few years (2). It is also unclear if the national audit body, the Court of Auditors, is formally responsible. According to Law No. 80-05 of March 1980, it is charged with post-auditing the finances of the state, local authorities, public services and the market capital of the state (3). No information was found whether this includes the non-budget income of state actors. Moreover, the control of the Court of Auditors is limited (4). (See a detailed answer on the powers of the Courts of Auditors in question 17).

Public scrutiny of defence income other than from central government seems to be minimal. Media reports on the military’s economic activities do not provide any information on the potential revenues suggesting that the media can only limitedly scrutinize them (1) (2). This is confirmed by the World Press Freedom Index, which ranked Algeria 136 out of 180 in 2018 (3). Journalists have also reportedly struggled to obtain information on the security sector (4). No evidence was found that CSOs have scrutinized defence incomes outside the defence budget (see the answer to question 4).

Non-central government sources of revenue for the defence sector are not included in the published state budget documents. However, revenue streams are made available they refrain from mentioning non-central government funding or sources (1), (2), (3), (4).

No evidence of such scrutiny or report is made by the inspector general of national defence, nor any other institutional media (1), and the inspector general is not independent.

No evidence found on media report on equipment sales or property disposal in Angola’s defense sector. There was media scrutiny on the sale of five state-owned airplanes to private companies in March 2018; yet, the airplanes were for civilian use and held by the Institutional Air Service in of the Ministry of Territorial Administration.. Media scrutiny focuses rather on defense spending than defense equipment or property sales. For examples the African Globe and the Trading Economics:

Trading Economics’ 2019 and 2016 reports, “Military expenditure (% of GDP) in Angola was reported at 2.9637 % in 2016, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources.Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects” [1] [2].

African Globe (2019) report, ” For a country that has been at peace since the end of civil war 16 years ago and struggling to service its debts as well addressing rampant poverty, is ironic that Angola is one of the African continent’s biggest spenders on military expenditure. Adding controversy to this apparent misplaced priority is the participation of some controversial international companies in bids to strengthen the country’s navy” [3].

Apart from central government allocation, the defence sector does have some income generation activities. These activities, for the most part, are linked to public works (roads, building, wells). Funds are also allocated to the security sector from international donors (2). However, they are not published like many other pieces of government data and information (1).

According to the Constitution, the “Court of Accounts is the superior jurisdiction of control of the public finances” (Article 127). The ASCE-LC has been granted constitutional investigation and prosecution rights (1). However, scrutiny of defence income other than from central government allocation still eludes both ASCE-LC and the Court of Account. There is a lack of real power and independence to carry out scrutiny within the defence and security sectors. The 2018 BTI report states, “the National Assembly’s authority and involvement in decision-making suffers from limitations in efficiency and mechanisms of oversight. Moreover, the strong role of the military and inability of the democratic institutions to control the military is a potential threat to the legislative, as became obvious in the course of the 2015 crisis” (2).

Citizens, CSOs, and media scrutinize the defence income other than from government allocation, through advocacy and recommendations (1). CSOs have played a significant role in improving accountability within the defence sector following up of the 2016 military coup. They now require that the defence sector steps away from its ancient practice of being a dumb institution to becoming an accountable and opened society instead (2). However, they face the government’s lack of collaboration and protection of the defence sector, as a government body (3), (4).

Saidou says “Civil society had proposed a “defence and security commission” among the bodies of the transition, to reflect on the reform of the security sector. The army, little open to external control, had objected. The decision to exclude civilians from thinking about the military reflects the reluctance of the military to open the field of defence to civilian control. By habit, the military is reluctant to submit to civilian control” (2).

Funds for the military mainly come from the central government [1]. Other sources of income come from bilateral cooperation. Cameroon receives military support from France, Turkey, China, the United States and several other countries. This aid usually supports the income of the budget. However, there is no reliable publication of information related to other sources of income from equipment sales or property disposal [2].

In addition, the Open Budget Survey (Jan 2018) states that the most recent budget did not present individual sources of non-tax revenue in the Executive’s Budget Proposal or any supporting budget documentation [3].

There is no evidence of institutional scrutiny of non-central government sources of funding [1]. According to the Open Budget Survey (Jan 2018), the most recent budget did not present individual sources of non-tax revenue in the Executive’s Budget Proposal or any supporting budget documentation [2].

In addition, there is limited oversight of the budget [2] and Article 35 of the Constitution also limits parliamentary oversight of defence and security [3].

There is no evidence of public scrutiny of funding that is not from central government. According to the Open Budget Survey (Jan 2018), the most recent budget did not present individual sources of non-tax revenue in the Executive’s Budget Proposal or any supporting budget documentation, making public scrutiny of such sources of funding impossible [1].

There is no evidence that the MoD has alternate (formal) sources of income other than the resources allocated by the central government via the annual Budget Law (Loi de Finances). Côte d’Ivoire does not have an arms industry that could generate extra-budgetary income for the MoD. Even if equipment or property were to be sold, there would be no official disclosure of that type of income. A separate issue is money generated by individual former rebel leaders of the Forces Nouvelles (FN), (known by the acronym of COMZONES) who in practice may manage commodities trade and natural resources within their spheres of influence.

According to a March 2016 IFRI report by Aline Leboeuf, some COMZONES profit from this kind of parallel local economy, including the trafficking of gold, diamonds and cocoa:

“The Comzone galaxy is very heterogeneous. Although the shining “stars” of the Comzone system have been sidelines, their young heirs, who are less famous and have not been prosecuted for war crimes, remain willing to replace them and to continue their work, including the controlling of certain segments of the Ivorian informal economy. However, their influence is smaller than that of their elders” (1).

“The latest report submitted to the Security Council on April 13, 2015 states that “the influence that some former zone commanders have on the state security apparatus remains problematic” and again uses General Wattao’s involvement in gold and diamond trafficking and illegal taxation of transportation. As for Losseni Fofana’s BSO, he purportedly extorts the illegal cocoa farmers with plantations nearby Duékoué national park.”

There is no evidence of alternate (formal) sources of income for the MoD other than the central government allocations. Hence, there is no oversight of such revenue flows. Côte d’Ivoire does not have an arms industry that could generate extra-budgetary income for the MoD. Even if the equipment were to be sold or property disposed of in the market, no institutional scrutiny is in place to monitor such flows because of political reasons.

According to a March 2016 IFRI report by Aline Leboeuf, certain COMZONES control the local informal economy, including the trafficking in gold, diamonds and cocoa. Leboeuf maintains there has been a tacit tolerance of such informal sources of income by the administration of President Outtara because of the threat that COMZONES continue to pose to political stability in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 crisis. “The problem with the comzones also has to do with the control they continue to exercise over their fighters, who may be reintegrated into society or not, but who remain armed and available to fight as auxiliaries or simply to serve as guardians to protect the mines or other illegal activities of the comzones.”

There has been public scrutiny (media, academics, CSOs) over the control that certain former rebel leaders of the Forces Nouvelles (FN), known as COMZONES, have over the informal economy within their spheres of influence. For example, a March 2016 IFRI report by Aline Leboeuf addresses the trafficking practices of Issiaka Ouattara (known as Wattao) in the region of Séguéla. Jeune Afrique has carried regular updates of regional military warlords, and the non-central government income they receive from operating a local parallel economy: (1) (2)

“While few COMZONES have been sanctioned by the UN Security Council and none are currently being pursued by the International Criminal Court, reports issued by the panel of experts on Côte d’Ivoire established as per Article 27 of Resolution 2153 (2014) exposed the types of parallel informal economy that some COMZONES have managed to put in place to exploit Ivorian resources to their ends…The last report, published by the Security Council on 13 April 2015, states that “the influence that some former zone commanders exert over the state security apparatus remains problematic,” and again highlights the involvement of Wattao in trafficking of gold and diamonds and in the illegal taxation of transportation networks” (1).

An OFPRA report from September 2017 lists the names of the COMZONES; and the areas in which they can supplement their income from the MoD by trafficking in commodities and natural resources (3). They include Morou Ouattra (known as Atchengué), Hervé Toure (known as Vetchio), Ousmane Cherif, Tuo Fozie, Messamba Kone, Zoumana Ouattara, Issiaka Ouattara (known as Wattao), Losséni Fofana, Daouda Doumbia, Ousmane Coulibaly, Gaoussou Kone, Martin Fofie and Zakaria Kone.

The military earns a huge income from economic activities, its budget and sources of income are a mystery and no real and accurate data is available for either the public, the ACA or even the Ministry of Finance (1), (2), (3). The economic activity of the military is considered as a major information black hole, and estimates of its size are little more than speculations, and they vary between 2-40% of the GDP (4). This very large gap is a result of a lack of concrete information about these activities and their revenue streams. President al-Sisi himself joined in the speculative exercise saying that the size of the military economy is by no means more than 2% of GDP in an attempt to show that the higher estimates are completely blown out of proportion (5). Regardless of the size of the military economy, what matters is that there is no way for the public or even supervisory and monitoring bodies to know any details about the sources of income.

According to our sources, despite that the military has a huge industry and income from economic activities, its budget and sources of income are a mystery and no real and accurate data available fro either public, ACA or even the Ministry of Finance (1), (2), (3). The government, including the current president, has repeatedly asserted that all military economic activity is subject to scrutiny by the supreme audit institution the Central Auditing Agency (CAA). The reports and findings of the CAA are not made available to the public. However, in 2014 al-Sisi passed a law to allow him to remove the directors of supervisory authorities including that of the CAA. Many commentators believed the law was passed specifically to “handle” the then CAA director Hisham Geneina. Geneina was removed from his post after speaking in the media about the size and scale of government corruption and started facing trial for “spreading false news” (4), (6). He also faces a military trial for “defaming the Armed Forces” after supporting the presidential candidacy of Sami Anan against al-Sisi. After Anan was arrested, Geniena threatened to expose top-secrets about the military’s involvement in causing social unrest following the 2011 revolution (5). In sum, even if formal mechanisms and institutions exist, the type of scrutiny exercised by them is deemed ineffective given the broad mandate and powers of the president and the military courts to restrict these institutions and hunt down their officials.

According to our sources, there is no public scrutiny over non-central government sources of income despite many efforts to raise questions about the role of the army in the economy of Egypt (1), (2), (3). Many media outlets and NGOs are still active in scrutinizing issues around extra-budgetary military income and revenue streams. However, this is a shrinking space for both media and civil society, and the lack of information makes this task all the more difficult (4), (5).

There are selective publications on sources of income. For instance, there is a publication on internal income such as those from the 37 Military Hospital, but it is far from comprehensive. The full amount that the armed forces generate from peace support operations all over the world is generally kept secret (1), (2). Published national audit reports only include limited financial information from the Ministry of Defence. This includes mostly recurring operational costs, such as payroll information and taxes (3).

According to the 2018 budget, the MOD’s Internally Generated Fund (IGF) amounted to GH¢11.883m (approximately 246,000 USD). All the IGF revenue that was generated was subsequently spent (4). The whole amount was generated through the Military Health Service.

The Audit-Service is the main public institution mandated with promoting “good governance, transparency, accountability and probity in Ghana’s public financial management system”. The audits are used to make recommendations to Parliament (1). According to Section 13 “Examination of accounts”, the Auditor-General shall examine the public and other government accounts to verify if: “a) the accounts have been properly kept; (b) all public monies have been fully accounted for, and rules and procedures applicable are sufficient to secure an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of the revenue; (c) monies have been expended for the purposes for which they were appropriated and the expenditures have been made as authorised; (d) essential records are maintained and the rules and procedures applied are sufficient to safeguard and control public property; and (e) programmes and activities have been undertaken with due regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness in relation to the resources utilised and results achieved”.

This also includes any source of income that does not come from the central government. However, according to the last publicly available report, no investigation has been conducted to scrutinise the MOD’s alternative sources of income (2).

Additionally, the Internal Audit Agency promotes good governance, transparency, accountability and probity in Ghana’s public financial management system by auditing to recognized international standards and reporting audit results and recommendations to Parliament. The Internal Audit Agency was established to support the transfer of budgetary authority and expenditure control to the MDAs and MMDAs.

CSOs and the media do not conduct scrutiny on non-central government sources of funding (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). Looking at the research of several CSOs’ operating in Ghana (Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition, Ghana Integrity Initiative, Strengthening Transparency, Accountability and Responsiveness in Ghana, West Africa Civil Society Institute, Centre for Democratic Development), and looking at Ghanaian news media outlets (Modern Ghana, Myjoyonline, GhanaWeb, Ghana News Agency, Graphic Online) no evidence of scrutiny towards non-central government sources has been found.

Additional sources of defence income generated or received are not recorded online by Iraq’s defence institutions (1). All that is made available are budgetary allocations for security actors and institutions documented in Iraq’s federal budget law, but even that information offers an incomplete picture of income-generating activities. The draft budget law for 2019 was published by the local press (2) but was not supplemented by additional details of expenditure.

The MoD and its ancillary branches do not upload data relevant to overall operational expenses or additional income, separate to funds earmarked by the central government seated in Baghdad.
The Directorate of Military Accounts monitors accounts receivable and the audits of all bureaus belonging to Iraq’s military (1). Official pages managed by the Directorate do not refer to mechanisms of institutional scrutiny when managing additional sources of defence income. Further evidence on MoD income reveals “limiting funds” and “fiscal constraints” (2) which make Iraq likely to continue relying on foreign armament suppliers which might demote the importance of scrutinising funds that are unlikely to amount to anything substantial. Income generated from Iraq’s military repair factory in Taji is not made publicly available, but by and large, Iraq’s indigenous defence industry is feeble and poorly placed to generate substantial revenue. It must be emphasised that the MoD’s IG office is mandated to exercise oversight of external and internal income, but combing through relevant reports and coverage, no such evidence could be located.

Public scrutiny of defence income by the press and CSOs is common, it is also debated in parliament. For example, in a parliamentary session held in January 2019, trillions of Iraqi dinars generated by non-oil revenues remain unaccounted for, an emphasis was made about the need to monitor licensing and contractual agreements (1). Iraq’s local media often reports on corruption and the defence industry in general terms, and other articles offer in-depth insight into particular deals steeped in corruption (2), (3), (4). As noted by Abbas Sarout a member of Iraq’s parliamentary Security and Defence Committee, “estimated losses from corrupt defence contracts were equivalent to Iraq’s budget for three or four years” (2). Another report warns “widespread perceived corruption impacts utilisation of funds intended for new procurement” (5). This is corroborated by a military expert interviewed for the assessment, it is noteworthy that “details which could result in the imposition of penalties or judicial action, are often shrouded in secrecy, particularly in foreign procurement deals, involving allies with whom Iraq relies on for donations of military equipment or enters into contractual agreements with for supplies needed to maintain security” (6).

The official website of the Jordanian Armed Forces, under the Developmental Role section, lists several entities and companies that provide income to the defence sector in Jordan [4]. However, none of these on the list have been audited by the Audit Bureau [5]. Defence income other than that coming through the central Government is not published regularly [6,7].

There is some information available through non-official sources about the military assistance provided to Jordan through Canada, Germany, the UK and the US. This information, however, sporadically circulates through public statements [1], donor governments’ official websites [2], and/or western media reporting [3].

Jordan is a country of limited resources and depends on donor countries to provide Military AID (USA, Germany, Canada,….etc).The amounts of these grants are well known and puplished either by the donor countries or through official channels since all this income is governed by Cooperation agreements signed on official levels [8]. According to our sources, there is a selective publications and disclosure of the amount of funds/ money recieevd by the MoD’s runned businesses[9].

There are several sources of revenue for the defence establishment in Jordan beyond the central government budget, including revenues from the operations of the King Abdullah Design & Development Bureau (the industrial manufacturing arm of the Jordanian Armed Forces); the re-sale of old equipment; and income from projects carried out by Mawared and the Development Investment Projects fund (DIP), both of which are primarily involved in commercial and residential development using land that was previously reserved for military purposes but is now extremely valuable suburban real estate. None of the revenues generated by these entities is published, and they are not included on the list of entities subjected to audit by the Audit Bureau. This is despite the fact that they meet the 50% threshold for government ownership that should trigger an official audit and their employees meet the definition of ‘public sector’ worker that should, in theory, subject them to the same legal code applied to state officials. The Army’s industrial conglomerate the King Abdullah Design & Development Bureau/KADDB has also received direct government funding (of about $12 million/year as of 2008). KADDB does, however, employ individuals trained as accountants and financial managers, but whether this personnel is tasked with internal monitoring of accounts for corrupt transactions is unclear. [10].

There is no institutional scrutiny over additional income of the defence forces. No governmental committee or organization scrutinize military state-owned businesses and semi-private entities [1,2].

Sources of defence income other than those from central Government are not fully disclosed and are not accessible to the public. Furthermore, this lack of public scrutiny in relation to defence income can be explained through the legal provisions that make such public scrutiny illegal [1]. In addition to that, in 2016 the Armed Forces prohibited the publication of any information related to it, and this includes its sources of income [2].

The monthly and yearly reports (1, 2 and 3) of the Finance Ministry on the budget and spending of the security agencies do tell the public how much the security agencies received that did not come from the central Government budget. They break down the figure to a number of sections like “property disposal” without further details, but they do not say how that money is spent..

The Finance Ministry also performs this function with all other Government agencies and always fails to include the allocation of the funds in its report, so the lack of transparency here may not be the result of intimidation from the security agencies.

Officials and activists say there is no reason to believe that the reporting process is selective (4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

In fact, there has been a rumour making the rounds in Kuwait about auditors getting assaulted and verbally abused in unnamed Government agencies when they asked to view their records since 2016. Waleed al-Tabtabaki, a lawmaker, formally asked the Finance Minister to respond to these claims in May 2018 (9).

Like all other financial transactions, these practices fall under the scrutiny of the SAB, and the finance department of these agencies, which are under the control of the ministers. These departments may fail to review the funding and they may not be allowed to do so. They are not allowed to release their findings to the public, external auditors say (1, 2 and 3). Often, they are uncooperative with external Government auditors or simply do not have information on the matter because the ministers have the right to control and limit their scope of work, according to article 24 of the police law and article 27 of the military law (4 and 5).

The Kuwaiti public and media seem to have no awareness of these activities, according to activists, journalists and officials (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). There are virtually no news stories on the matter and only people who have studied corruption in Kuwait or who have experience with the Government know that these practices exist in the first place.

It is worth noting that the lack of public and media scrutiny here should not be completely blamed on the Government, however, because these operations, at least in the defence and security sector, are small and have little impact on the overall budget of these organisations and that is why activists consistently prioritise other issues.

Some publications of donations and military assistance by media outlets cover donations coming to the LAF. Donations in the form of military assistance by countries include military equipment to support the LAF (1). Donations and equipment delivery is also published on the LAF website (2). Furthermore, all donations need to be approved in the form of a decree by the Council of Ministers. The decree is then published in the official gazette (3). However, the official gazette is not free; a yearly subscription for the electronic version of the gazette costs $366 (4). On the other hand, donation decrees by individuals and foreign countries are sometimes published on the Lebanese University’s research centre website under “legal texts” (5). Even though the MoD does not fully publish sources of defence income, almost all donations received are in materiels and good and not monetary, information on these donations is available from the donors (especially the USA and major military aid) (6).

According to our sources, the Parliament does not scrutinize the non-government resources that are not included in the budget. The decrees are approved by the Council of Ministers (1), (2). According to a source, an internal review process exists within the LAF (3).

Public scrutiny is non-existant for non-central government sources of funding (1). Usually, public scrutiny is aimed at the defence budget expenditure because it is the biggest one within the state budget. Almost 80% of the defence budget is spent on salaries and wages (2)

SIPRI’s report from 2006 notes that the use of off-budget income to supplement defence spending is routine.¹ The Malian armed and security forces have a statutory duty to participate in public works as part of their contribution to the economic and social development of the country. These activities primarily occur in sectors considered to be not lucrative enough for private companies. However, they serve as revenue-generating ventures for the military whose costs are substantially lower. Private enterprises attached to military units – such as restaurants and leisure facilities – and Malian troops’ participation in peacekeeping operations also generate income for the Ministry of Defence.¹ Yet none of these income streams appear in the budget, nor is there any evidence that this income is published elsewhere. The assessor has not found more recent evidence.

There are several internal and external bodies tasked with auditing the finances of the Defence Ministry (see Q16). However, there is no evidence that these actors are able to properly scrutinise off-budget incomes. Moreover, analysis of the BVG, IG, and National Assembly show state capture across the oversight bodies.¹

The failure of the government to publish accounts of the income derived by the Ministry of Defence from participating in projects such as peacekeeping activities and undertaking public works prohibits any kind of public scrutiny of such revenue streams.

According to the 2018 Budget Law, only one isolated article entitled ‘Various income’ (ref. refers to income sources that come from outside central government allocation (1)(2).

No evidence that information about income sources other than from central government allocation was found in the local or regional press. (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9).

No evidence of institutional scrutiny (such as from bodies referring to the High Commissioner’s Office for Planning, the General Treasury, or the National Audit Office) of non-central government sources of funding was found (1)(2)(3)(4)(5).

No evidence of public scrutiny of non-central government sources of funding by national and international media was found. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10).

No evidence of public scrutiny of non-central government sources of funding by CSOs was found. (11)(12)(13)(14).

One can therefore conclude that public scrutiny of non-central government sources of funding is non-existent.

There is no defence industry in Niger, and the military does not own any property that could provide it with additional income or revenue (1). However, Niger receives important assistance from its main international partners. The type of assistance depends on the partner and may come in the form of military and police specialised training or gifts like armament, ammunition, military equipment etc. The cooperation is set up on a bilateral level – with the United States, France and Germany – as the main partners, and on a multilateral level – mainly with the European Union and the United Nations (2). The information regarding the content of the cooperation is accessible on the websites of Niger’s partners as well as in reports by think-tanks working on the Sahel region (2); it is also occasionally published in press-releases (4, 5) or provided in official interviews with Nigerien ministers or high-ranking civil servants (6). Information on the provided assistance is centralised in the Office of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armies (Etat Major des Armées), but it is not accessible to the public.

The Defence Ministry’s internal oversight body – the Office of the Inspector General of the Armed Forces (IGA) – provides a scrutiny mechanism (1). Depending on the Presidency (see question 8), it ensures that all relevant administrative, financial and budgetary rules and standards are applied and respected and that public resources are managed in a transparent, efficient and cost-effective manner (2). Within the Ministry of Defence, there is also the Office of the Inspector General (IGS, Inspection Générale des Services), which acts as a control structure within the internal administration of the Ministry (1). Its equivalent also exists in other Ministries.

Civil Society Organisations (CSO) occasionally participate in defence and security debates. For example, every year, AEC organises a forum “Session Budgetaire Citoyenne” to discuss upcoming financial law, where defence and security budget is also debated (1). Sometimes, the criticism provided by some organisations may lead to the arrests of their leaders (see the example provided in question 4, sub-section CSO protections). Therefore, even if a debate is taking place, defence and security policies remain the government’s prerogative.
The debate also concerns mainly sources coming from the central government. At the same time, assistance from cooperation with its main international partners may be considered as an important source of income from non-central government sources. As explained previously (see Q3), the extent of international military presence in Niger remains unclear.

Technically there are only a limited number of sources of income from commercial companies such as DICON as the defence sector is not primarily a revenue-generating institution. However, a few miscellaneous units exist which generates some revenue such as the officer’s mess for example. If military assistance from foreign donors is given, it is unlikely to be recorded in the national budget, but such assistance normally involves technical assistance, training and equipment (1). Where there is foreign aid in financial terms, it is rarely included in the budget. Remittances from other income sources are not remitted to the single treasury account following the Single Treasury Account policy which requires all revenues from government agencies to be remitted to the central account. The publication of extra-budgetary revenue is uncommon (2).

The Daskigate corruption scandal was mainly uncovered by a special audit committee created by President Buhari to investigate defence spending between 2007 -2015 (1), (2). It is unlikely that the Audit Office carries out scrutiny of non-budget sources of income as the proceeds from such units are not deposited with the Single Treasury Account (TSA) (3).

There is no evidence of scrutiny of non-central government sources of funding. CSOs have no access to this information and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is very low in the defence institutions (1).

Published data on external defence income is sparse, state income (not solely defence) beyond central government allocation derives from the country’s Petroleum Resource Fund and Oman’s Investment Fund (sovereign wealth fund) according to Gulf News Banking (1). Moreover, in efforts to diversify the economy plans to privatise six-state businesses, which will see an increase in investment program revenues (2). However, no reference to defence income appears across media outlets (1), (2), (3), (4) or either the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Finance (5), (6). The lack of public information available on the defence sector budget undermines transparency. According to our sources, external income to the government or the defence, in particular, are never published. No information is available for the financial department at the armed forces either on external income as the budget comes from the ministry or the sultan’s office (7), (8).

As established in sub-indicators 13A/B, there is no legislative committee charged with scrutinising the defence budget or defence expenditures. Though anti-corruption legislation is laid out clearly with regards to bribery in Oman, in accordance with the penal code (Royal Decree no. 7/74) and the Law for the Protection of Public Funds and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest (Royal Decree no. 112/2011), there is no clause regarding external income or, despite the State Audit Institution and the Economic and Financial Committee, a mandate for institutional scrutiny (1), (2). There is no reference about external sources of defence income (3) beyond the central government, as explained in sub-indicator 15A. This demonstrates that there is no institutional scrutiny of non-central government sources of funding.

Civil society is severely limited in Oman (1). “Public scrutiny” only exists in cases where citizens are accused of defaming the sultan by the Omani state and thus their critique is shared (2), (3). Moreover, cases upheld against activists scrutinising corruption no explicit mention is made about defence, defence spending, or security. It is, therefore, difficult to speak about public scrutiny when there is no transparency of central government defence income in the first place. According to our source, there is no public scrutiny at all on the defence budget that includes the governmental income, or non-central government income (4), (5).

There are only certain items within the budget that refer to income sources, and no information is released on the amounts received or the allocation of this income that mainly comes from international donations, such as the USA (1). There are a few situations where the income of the military and defence units is published (3). These occurrences happen when a foreign country announces that they are funding security sector or national forces (2).

In most cases, projects financed by donors are not implemented through the Palestinian financial systems. No direct payments are made. It is therefore not possible to provide a mechanism for inclusion in the budget. All assets that are made available are disclosed following approved registration systems (4).

As most of the national forces/intelligence services are affiliated with Fatah and have international and regional connections, scrutiny is affected by how much influence those leaders have. More financial and personal resources mean more power to wield undue influence by the person (1), (2).

Public Scrutiny and consultation over resources and public issues are minimal to non-existent in general, and on national forces and security issues in particular (1). The funds usually go to vehicles, salaries and police operations which do not seem like significant issues for the public. The largest part of the budget of the national force goes to salaries (2). There are some papers and conferences that discuss issues related to the work and priorities of the security sector (3), (4), (5).

There is evidence that the defence sector has sources of income other than those allocated through the central government, however, there is no publication of non-central government sources of funding. Information on non-central government defence income include the first defence and security company (Barazan Holding) established by the Ministry of Defence and headed by Khalid Al-Attiyah, Defence Minister [1]. In addition to that, the Qatari Military owns a company called ‘Qatar Armed Forces Investment Portfolio’. Registered in Luxemburg, the company is a commercial entity owned by the armed forces and generates income through real estate [2]. Information about non-governmental sources of funding has been obtained through media outlets as opposed to official government websites. According to our sources, the Qatari Armed Forces have other sources of income, yet the amount is not published [3,4].

Information about sources of defence income, other than from central government, are not made public through official means. Institutional scrutiny over non-central government defence income is, therefore, non-existent. According to our sources, there is an internal financial auditing unit who is responsible for the auditing process but not for scrutiny [1,2,3,4].

Public scrutiny of non-central government sources of funding is minimal or non-existent. Qatar’s strict rules on freedom of expression forces the public, journalists and academics to exercise self-censorship. Speaking against the government, or critiquing its policies, may lead to imprisonment. Individuals may have, to a limited extent, some freedom in the private sphere. In Qatar, there is no public deliberation when it comes to policy making, and therefore, there is a complete absence of public scrutiny over any type of policy, budget or otherwise [1,2].

The government does not publish sources of defence income other than from central government allocation. The military and defence sectors do not currently represent a significant source of income in the country, with Saudi Arabia being a net military spender rather than generating income from this industry (1), (2). However, the country plans to localize 50% of its defence spending by the year 2030 (3). According to government literature, as part of these plans, Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI), a military industry company formed in May 2017, aims to generate SAR 5 billion worth of exports by that year (4). Neither SAMI nor the General Authority for Military Industries, another government-industry body formed in August 2017, have published specific financial details relating to their activities, and it is unclear if they will do so in the future.

According to our sources, there is no institutional scrutiny of non-central government sources of income by either the Consultative Council or any other government body – though as mentioned above there is no significant source of income currently for this sector other than central government allocation. Besides that, there is no non-central government income generated by the military (1), (2).

There is no public scrutiny of either central or non-central government sources of funding in the country; there is no culture of open debate on or scrutiny of most government-related issues in the local media or discourse, as this is unofficially circumscribed by the government and would likely lead to reprisals against citizens (1), (2).

According to our sources, the non-central Government funds are registered and shown in the budget. However, this data is not published in detailed formats(1,2,3). Sources of income other than from the central Government allocation are published in the Ministry of Defence’s budget (4). These incomes are coming from the national service fund (funded by the contributions of conscripts and amounts paid by the structures for which services are rendered). The total amount of income is published (1, page 20). Equally, for the expenditure of this fund, only total amounts are published. It is explained in the budget’s document that these funds are allocated to the development of rural or remote areas and that its total resources are used to cover the expenditures necessary for the completion of projects.

According to chapters 3 and 4 of Law n°42- 2004 dated the 13/05/2004 “organic budget law”, these sources of income are subject to the sale rules of audit and control applied by the Government. There is no exceptions for the defence budget (1). There is no further information on the nature of this scrutiny.

According to our sources, there is no public interest in the non-central Government income to MoD, and therefore no scrutiny or public oversight(1,2,3). It is to be said that the amount of income coming from this is relatively low (10 million dinars). The review of media reports didn’t show any interest from CSOs and media in the scrutiny of this source of income (4).

There is no publication of non-central government sources of funding and income. According to our sources, the only income and source of funding comes directly from the central government of the UAE, and it is managed indirectly and directly through the office of the crown prince MBZ (1), (2), (3).

As there are no non-central government sources of funds, there is not any kind of institutional scrutiny over defence income generated through non-central government sources (1), (2), (3).

As there are no non-central government sources of funds, there is not any kind of institutional scrutiny over defence income generated through non-central government sources (1), (2), (3).

Country Sort by Country 15a. Transparency Sort By Subindicator 15b. Institutional scrutiny Sort By Subindicator 15c. Public scrutiny Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Angola 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Cameroon 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 0 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Ghana 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Iraq 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Jordan 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
Lebanon 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Mali 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Morocco 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Niger 0 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 0 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Oman 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Qatar 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Saudi Arabia 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Tunisia 50 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
United Arab Emirates 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100

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