What procedures and standards are companies required to have – such as compliance programmes and business conduct programmes – in order to be able to bid for work for the Ministry of Defence or armed forces?

62a. Formal policies


SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

62b. Consistent implementation



Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

According to a US State Department report, private companies are generally not required to have internal codes of conduct concerning the bribery of public officials. Some companies follow codes of conduct standards, while there are rumours that others pay bribes (1). The Public Procurement Law of 2006 does not require that bidding firms have a specific code of conduct. It only states that it is an offence when any person offers or grants remuneration or benefits to an official in connection with a public contract. The code of conduct mentioned earlier only applies to public officials, but not bidding firms (2).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there is evidence that private companies are generally not required to have internal codes of conduct with regards to the bribery of public officials (1), (2); also see the answer to question 62A. Therefore, the consistency of the implementation of these standards cannot be assessed.

The public procurement law establishes some basic anti-corruption requirements. The parties interested in participating in a tender cannot get involved, participate or support corrupt practices (Art. 9) (1). The public procurement law applies to all public contracts, open or restricted tenders, tenders by invitation or simplified procedures (direct awards), except for arms or military logistics procurement contracts that are declared secret. Beyond the general principles laid out in the general legal framework, (public procurement law, law on public probity, anti-money laundering legislation) (1) there aren’t any more detailed anti-corruption requirements for companies working for the government in general, the Ministry of Defence, or the armed forces.

The bulk of known defence procurement contracts over the last few years were directly awarded (a simplified procedure or negotiation procedure under the previous 2010 public procurement law) (1), and there is little information on the selection criteria applied.

– The €88,161,000 contract with Augusta Westland S.P.A. in 2015 for the acquisition of six helicopters, spare parts and training of specialists;
– The $9 million contract with Moscóvia Ltd in 2017 for technical assistance and refurbishments of air force planes;
– The €495 million contract with Privinvest Shipbuilding Investments LLC in 2016 (no specification of contract procedure) for technical assistance and the acquisition of 17 naval vessels (2), (3), (4).

No laws or procedures details how the government discriminates in its selection of suppliers and sub-contractors. Yet, signing anti-corruption clauses is not a prerequisite either. The only protocol (procedures and standards) companies should comply with, lies under Article 3 of Decree N° 0049 (2017), on the procedure for public procurement and contracting, execution and resolution. In fact, according to Article 3 of Decree N° 0049 (2017), “the contracting authorities cannot implement competitive processes between private bidders and public enterprises […] only if these the two latters fulfil the two following conditions:- they enjoy the vertue of a legal and financial autonomy; they are managed according to the provisions of business law” (1), (2).

Therefore, there is no mention of any other procedures or standards to fulfil before becoming eligible to bid for public procurement and contracting. There is no requirement of signing an anti-corruption clause either. Elsewhere, Law No. 038 does not mention anything about a prerequisite (procedures or standards) that potential bidders should meet to be allowed to bid on for the execution of public contracts.

Because there are no formal policies for business compliance, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

There is no evidence of the existence of laws or procedures detailing how the government discriminates in its selection of suppliers and sub-contractors; this is unsurprising given that defence procurement is confidential and exempt from tenders and OTC markets. Legislation that covers procurement in Cameroon exempts defence and security contracts (‘Special Contracts’) as per Article 71 of the Public Procurement Code (2018). According to Article 4 (2) (e) of the Code (2018), bilateral contracts (between the state and foreign party) that fall under the category of article 71 (special contracts) are exempted from the code’s provisions [1].

According to Transparency International, “most large-scale projects put up for public procurement involve the decision of the president directly” [2]. Furthermore, there is no evidence that suppliers or sub-contractors are required to sign anti-corruption clauses in contracts with the government, and it is unlikely that such clauses would be required due to the fact that defence procurement is exempt from competitive bidding and oversight [1].

There is no evidence that formal policies exist governing the standards required for bidding organizations, and defence procurement is exempt from tenders and OTC markets. Therefore this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

Legislation that covers procurement in Cameroon exempts defence and security contracts (‘Special Contracts’) as per Article 71 of the Public Procurement Code (2018). According to Article 4 (2) (e) of the Code (2018) bilateral contracts (between the state and foreign party) that fall under the category of article 71 (special contracts) are exempted from the code’s provisions [1].

There are legal provisions in the 2009 Code of Public Procurement on procedures and standards that companies are required to follow when negotiating a contract with public administration, including the MoD. The code also contains some anti-corruption provisions. The 2009 Code of Public Procurement (Décret n° 2009-259, Portant Code des marchés publics) contains provisions detailing certain procedures and standards that government suppliers and vendors are required to follow to sign a contract with the public administration. For example, Chapter 2 (Candidats, soumissionnaires et titulaires), Articles 48 and 49 define the requirements that companies must meet to be eligible for a public contract. Companies with obvious conflicts of interest are barred, as per Article 48 (1). Articles 48 states,

“Art. 48 – Companies are not allowed to participate in procurement or in the provision of public services where there is a conflict of interest, namely:
1. if the members of the Contracting Authority, Public Procurement Authority, the Procurement Unit or the bidding company… have financial or personal interests that can compromise the transparency of public procurement procedures.
2. if a company is affiliated with the consultants who helped prepare all or part of the tender documents” (1).

Articles 185 – 187 of Chapter two of the 2009 Code of Public Procurement also contain some anti-corruption standards (Sanction des violations commises par les candidats soumissionnaires ou titulaires), that the bidding companies must abide by. For example, Article 185 stipulates that a bidding company may be barred from future public tenders if the information they provide contains deliberate inaccuracies (1).

There is some evidence that the provisions in Articles 48-49 and 185-187 in the 2009 Code of Public Procurement are sometimes implemented when negotiating contracts with bidding suppliers. However, given the confidentiality surrounding the MoD’s procurement practices, consistent implementation is difficult to gauge through open sources. Reports on the recent history of public procurement in Côte d’Ivoire point to defence expenditure as a strategic sector that often eludes the usual procurement conventions and procedures. Though the report by J.M. Adou is dated (2004-2005), this could imply that the provisions put forth in the 2009 Code of Public Procurement are rarely implemented in defence contracts (1). Still, there is evidence that the provisions of Articles 48-49 and 185-187 are increasingly being implemented. For example, the WAEMU (Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine, UEMOA) web page dedicated to litigation cases connected to public procurement in Côte d’Ivoire contains a list of 67 cases ranging from 2011 to 2017 (2). One of the litigation cases listed involves a lawsuit due to irregularities regarding medical examinations of 1,500 demobilized former combatants in the Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) program. There are two cases listed under the MoD (Ref. No. 020/2014/ANRMP/CRS and Ref. No. 021/2014/ANRMP/CRS), but both are related to the installation of kitchen equipment at military installations (2).

In the Law no. 182 of 2018, which is the main legal texts that regulate public procurement in all sectors, there is no mention of discriminating on the basis of integrity. The only criteria that are mentioned in the law which selection of companies should be based on are price and the satisfaction of technical requirements. However, Article 6 of the executive regulations stipulates that the procurement departments of public administrations should have a database of companies that are banned from bidding and that the reason for the ban should be listed in the database. In Article 50 of the Law, corruption is listed as a reason for banning companies from future bids (1).

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable because there is strong evidence that these standards are not consistently implemented, especially when it comes to the defence and security sectors. According to our interviews, the laws are bypassed, while corruption and nepotism have taken over the processes of procurement (1), (2), (3). The law (4) itself allows for bids to be secret as required by “national security considerations” (Article 77), there is not a strict definition, which means that as a provision, it can be used for things remotely related to the defence and security sector. This is in addition to the wide powers given to the MoD and the MMP to decide to make the bids secret as they deem necessary (4)

The Public Procurement Act details how the government discriminates in its selection of suppliers based on their integrity. In particular, section 22 states that a tenderer in public procurement shall have directors or officers who have not “(i) [been] convicted of any criminal offence relating to their professional conduct or to making false statements or misrepresentations as to their qualifications to enter into a procurement contract, within a period of ten years preceding the commencement of the procurement proceedings; or (ii) [they will be] disqualified pursuant to administrative suspension or disbarment proceedings” (1).

Also, section 32 states that a procurement entity shall reject a supplier if “the supplier, contractor or consultant that submitted it offers, gives or agrees to give, directly or indirectly, to any current or former officer or employee of the procurement entity or other governmental authority, (a) a gratuity in any form; (b) an offer of employment; or (c) any other thing of service or value as an inducement with respect to anything connected with a procurement entity and procurement proceedings.” (2).

Suppliers or sub-contractors are not required to sign anti-corruption clauses in contracts with the government. They are governed by the Public Procurement Act (2003), and the Financial Administrative Act (2003) (3), (4).

There is evidence that these policies and laws are sometimes implemented concerning non-hardware items, but they are not implemented for purchases of hardware. GAF and MoD contract bids are not based on any standards applied through the law, but rather whether they ‘fit’ the single-source requirement laid out in the PPA (1), (2), (3).

While various state ministries have published specific public contract guides, ministry of defence contracts are only briefly mentioned in ‘A Guide to the Implementation of Government Contracts in Iraq’ (1). The guide identifies Tender Committees attached to each ministry as state-sanctioned bodies licensed to approve contracts, managing their own procurement needs following ‘Article 6 of Instruction No. 1/2008. In cases where contracts exceed IQD 50 million, special committees are formed who, alongside the contracting body, deliberate on which part to award the contract to. There is no explanation of the qualifications bidding firms are required to have or the legal basis on which contracts are granted. Bidder registration, as one legal source notes (2), is not required which implies relative openness for bidding firms. The general absence of facts as one interviewee told TI was down to a general policy of non-disclosure under which Iraq’s security and defence institutions operate (3). Decentralised procurement, one source breaks down (4) works in a manner in which contracting methods, tender documents and requirements are different under every ministry which results in procedural inconsistencies and contracts being reissued to bidders in spite of their poor track in delivering (4). The absence of centralised procurement mechanisms exposes, the source further explains, exposes a system bias in which contractors aligned to official employees inside institutions of the Iraqi state gain preference at times having access to “details of tenders”. As of present, there are no mechanisms to scrutinize the qualifications of suppliers as far as defence contracts are concerned, as the score chosen reflects.

Without the existence of a broader procurement strategy, it cannot be said that Iraq’s MoD and armed forces conduct compliance programmes in which contracting risks and foreseeable challenges are identified. Accessible legal guides relevant to conducting business with Iraqi ministries appear void of principles governing the behaviour of defence vendors/contractors. The absence of procedures and standards is further reflected by the scale of corruption over the past 5 years, involving bribes, extortion and shadowy firms (1), (2), (3).

In relation to procurement, Jordan has Military Supplies Law No. 3 of the year 1995, which sets out procedures in relation to the defence procurement cycle [1]. In addition to this system, Military Works Law No. 4 of the year 1995, sets out specific procedures for tendering in relation to construction work required by the armed forces [2]. Neither of those laws suggest that companies must have compliance and business conduct programmes to be able to bid for work for the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces. The Ministry of Finance has its own regulations represented by Tenders Regulations No. 1 of the year 2008 [3]. The regulations only apply to government departments and agencies intending to make its purchases through the Ministry of Finance’s Tenders committee. This service provided by the Ministry of Finance appears to be optional and not all governmental departments and ministries are expected to resort to it. In addition to that, even the Ministry of Finance’s regulations only require that bidders are registered and certified as traders or manufacturers by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. This demonstrates that none of the tender departments seem to have regulations that require bidding companies to have compliance and business conduct programmes to be able to bid for work [4]. In addition to that, defence contracts are not made public, and there is no evidence of any transparency in relation to actual contracts. None of the laws that apply to defence include any policies regarding minimum standards that sub-contractors and suppliers must adhere to before bidding for government contracts.

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as there is no evidence of standard procedures for companies to follow as a condition to submitting a bid to any governmental department, including the defence sector [1]. As established in 62A, there is no evidence to suggest that there are procedures and standards that companies are required to have, such as compliance programmes and business conduct programmes, in order to be able to bid for work for the Ministry of Defence or armed forces.

There are no publicly available procedures or policies which detail how the Government discriminates in its selection of suppliers and subcontractors. State auditors, who are often kept in the dark about weapons procurement, say that they are told that there are internal laws but they are not given access to this code and they are given limited or no information on their purchases (1, 2 and 3).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because it is unclear whether the security agencies have policies and laws that regulate how the Government discriminates in its selection of suppliers and subcontractor (1, 2 and 3).

Decree no. 11574 dictates the general conditions and requirements for companies eligible to apply for tender with the LAF (1). Although it does not require the tenders to show that they have a formal and publicly declared anti-corruption programme, they need to submit documents that ensure their eligibility such as clearance from the NSSF, registration certificate at the Ministry of Finance, etc. (2)

Contracts and reports are not publically available (1). So, it is unclear to what extent the laws are implemented (1). However, according to sources, the LAF is strict in the implementation of laws and regulations (2), (3).

Most defence-related purchases are exempt from standard procurement regulations which severely undermines the efficacy of the existing legislation with regard to the military.
Article 8 of the Code des Marchés Publics et des Délégations de Service Public says: “This decree does not apply to contracts for works, supplies or services when they relate to the needs of national defence or security, which require secrecy or for which the protection of essential national interests is incompatible with the publication of such contracts. The system under which these contracts operate is fixed by decree of the Council of Ministers”.¹ In practice, the Code cannot be used as a reference to answer this question. There are no laws to govern procurement exempt under Article 8.
Nevertheless, in the instances where the Code is deemed applicable, the law imposes clear legal obligations on companies tendering for public contracts. Article 3 of the Code sets out the fundamental principles of public procurement processes. Among them are:
– free access to public contract tenders
– equal treatment of candidates
– transparency of procedures, and through that, the rationality, modernity and traceability of procedures.¹
Moreover, article 29 is dedicated to mitigating the risks of corruption. Entitled, “De l’engagement de la lutte contre la corruption” (Concerning the commitment to fight against corruption), the article stipulates that:
“Offers and submissions must contain a commitment by the candidate or tenderer to:
– neither grant nor promise to grant to any person involved in the process of awarding a contract an improper advantage, financial or otherwise, directly or via an intermediary, with the intention of securing the contract.
– inform the contracting authority of any payment, advantage or privilege accorded to the benefit of any person, acting as an intermediary or an agent, to recompense them for any service provided.
– to respect, in general, legal provisions, notably those outlawing acts of passive corruption or trading of favours or any constituting offences of this nature”.¹
But given the lack of published defence contracts (see Q61), it is impossible to say whether corruption related provisions are included in such contracts.
Articles 27 and 38 state that the contracting authority can oblige bidding companies to provide certificates of qualification and to meet certain pre-qualification criteria to be eligible to submit tenders. But there is no explicitly mentioned requirement that companies must have robust anticorruption procedures in place.

Since article 8 of the code enables defence-related purchases to circumvent the regular procurement standards, military acquisitions are rarely subject to such robust requirements.1
In April 2018, opposition party Parena claimed to have gained access to an unpublished BVG report, which identifies numerous cases of overspending and dubious activity in military procurement.² The report apparently shows that the government paid 3.5 billion CFA in cash for a used Super Puma helicopter from Ireland and did not conform with the most basic procurement standards.² These claims were also reported by a journalist, who had also seen the unpublished audit, in Le Républican newspaper.⁸
The purchase of the presidential jet in 2014 for 18.59 billion CFA also did not comply with the standard procurement standards. The BVG determined that the former Minister of Defence, Soumeylou Boubeye Maïga, and the Minister of the Economy incorrectly interpreted Article 8 of the procurement code, which allows for certain acquisitions to be off-budget (see Q29A).3,6
But the BVG also found that 1.4 billion CFA of the total cost represented commissions and fees paid to a broker linked to IBK’s friend and French mafia figure Michel Tomi.⁷
In late 2016, the maintenance contract for the presidential plane was stripped from AMAC Aerospace and awarded to KLM UK Engineering (KLMUKE), a UK-based subsidiary of Air France Industries. As one media report notes “Repair costs rose in some cases over 500%. For example, the Malian government pays 839 million francs for a “D-check” maintenance visit with KLMUKE, compared to 153.8 million it paid for a D-check with AMAC”.⁷ This deal clearly did not comply with article 75 of the Code, which states that price should be the priority when awarding public contracts.⁷
There is also substantial evidence showing that the MDAC regularly uses imprest accounts as a way of purchasing items without having to comply with procurement requirements. In 2014, the IMF noted that:
“The execution of exceptional expenditures is subject to very minimal controls considering the amounts involved. In general, funds are released without prior proofs and receipts. The payment of the advance is subject to simplified controls, focusing primarily on the identity of the payment authorization officer and the amount of the advance. Control of the compliance of the expenditure being carried out, based on supporting documentation for the payment, takes place after the actual disbursement of the funds to a supplier or service provider”.⁴
The IMF also states that there are numerous deficiencies in the controls carried out, “particularly with respect to the imprest accounts of the defence and security forces in Mali”.⁴ It adds that “some imprest accounts receive quite substantial advances that go well beyond their original purpose of ‘minor operating expenditures’. For example, the special imprest account of the Ministry of Defence carries out monthly expenditures exceeding 2.3 billion CFA”.⁴ None of this spending is subject to standard procurement requirements.
There are reports in the Malian media, based on sources within the defence sector, alleging that fraudulent practices are commonplace at the Directorate of Finance and Equipment (DFM).⁵ Defence contracts are not subject to open and competitive tenders: instead they are often awarded to family members or close associates of defence officials.⁵ The acquisitions and sales of fixed assets are not supported by any justification or assessment of needs.⁵

The Code of Public Procurement Contracts in its revised version exempts defence procurement contracts from a number of transparency requirements (1)(2).

However, special requirements apply to defence procurement contracts:
– Art. 25.A.2.e and Art. 50.II.a.3.e: the candidate must prove its nationality as well as the nationality of its directors for contracts relating to defence or public security, if the contracting authority requires it.
– Art. 97.7: the candidate architecture company and the architects must prove their nationality if the contracting authorities require it.

None of these requirements concern compliance or business conduct programmes in relation to integrity beyond what is generally required in company law.

No further evidence of integrity requirement was found in other sources, such as the e-gov platform, activities of the national committee against corruption or parliamentary works. This might indicate a lack of transparency which in itself could imply corruption risks (3)(4)(5).

Since there are no laws or procedures detailing how the government discriminates in its selection of suppliers and sub-contractors, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

The Nigerien government has adopted legislation detailing how it selects suppliers and sub-contractors. The legislation also includes anti-corruption standards for the main contracts or subcontracts throughout the supply chain. Chapter III (Art. 6-12) of the 2013 Decree provides for specific requirements for companies to work for the Ministry of Defence. In particular, Art. 6 identifies different cases when companies are not allowed to work for the Ministry (paragraphs “a” to “i”) (1). These are standard conditions that are also mentioned in Art. 22 of the 2016 Decree (2). When engaging in the procurement process, companies are required to sign a “letter of engagement” (3) which is based on the code of ethics regarding public procurement (4). The letter mentioned above prohibits the following: “Corruptive activities regarding public agents engaged in the procurement; fraudulent manoeuvre [sic] in order to obtain the contract; illegal agreement; unjustified cancellation of the contract execution on the acceptance of the bid; failure to respect the subscribed commitments” (3). Without prejudice to penal sanctions, the “engagement letter” provides for administrative sanctions. Bidding for a contract with Niger’s Ministry of Defence requires compliance with Articles 6–13 of the decree.

Given the confidentiality of the content of the procedures (1), it is difficult to determine whether contractors and sub-contractors of the Ministry of Defence are screened to comply with the standards listed in Articles 6–13 of Decree No. 2013/570/PRN/PM. However, according to indirect evidence (such as the State Inspectorate General control in 2016) (2), it appears these policies are implemented.

Given that the process is shrouded in secrecy and that the PPA 2007 does not apply, there are no laws or procedures disclosed to the public, which detail the selection criteria and requirements for anti-corruption clauses in defence contracts with the government (1). The selection of contractors does not follow any transparent process and in many cases are determined by key individuals in the agencies concerned without any public oversight or quality assurance processes (2). In discussions with a source, it was confirmed that the requirements of the PPA are applied to bidding companies (3).

Because there are no policies for compliance of contracts, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Details of expenditures of the Nigerian Defence Budgets are not disclosed. As such, all the “Security Votes” accrued to the various state governments are never accounted for because the executive governments are not compelled by law to do so. How and what they do with the “Security Votes” is their business, and no one should ask questions (1). It follows that there is no consistent implementation of any policies that exist.

There are internal guidelines that put forward procedures setting out who and how suppliers and sub-contractors are selected for work contracts for the Ministry of Defence or armed forces (1), (2). However, these guidelines are old, vague and do not have any anti-corruption measures. They are not laws and can be bypassed by senior commanders or senior officers decisions in many cases (1). General anti-corruption legislation such as RD 112/2011, ‘The Law for the Protection of Royal Funds and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interests’, prohibits preferential treatment and the misuse of public funds or public office (3). However, this legislation focuses upon those employed in the public sector, there is no equivalent legislation for private companies (3). No policy details specific to the Defence Tender Board were found on institutional websites (4), (5).

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there are no laws or procedures outlining the standards for companies (See Q62A).

As the formal procedures concerning the minimum requirements for companies bidding for defence contracts are part of formal guidelines (not law), they can be bypassed by senior personnel, and therefore, they are not always implemented completely. Additionally, they have no anti-corruption measures (1), (2).

According to the website of the MoF, for companies that want to compete for bids, the only requirement from contractors or suppliers is to be registered with the Ministry of Economy and Finance and provide financial guarantees (1), (2). There is no evidence that contractors or suppliers sign anti-corruption clauses (1), (2).

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there is no evidence of policies that require contractors,and suppliers to sign an anti-corruption class. According to the website of the Ministry of Economy, the registration entails security clearance, taxation file, and bank account with a specific amount of money (1), (2).

There is no evidence of laws or procedures detailing how the Government discriminates in its selection of suppliers. Suppliers or sub-contractors are not required to sign anti-corruption clauses in contracts with the Government. [1] In addition to this, there are clauses within procurement law which state that if goods are considered confidential in nature, procurement processes may be restricted to preferred bidders, and that the procurement process may be managed directly with a single supplier [2]. This exception makes almost all defence procurement exempt from standard procurement regulations and practices. In addition to that, defence institutions are exempt from state tender laws [3]. This indicates that it is very unlikely that Qatar has clear procedures and standards that companies must follow for them to be able to bid for defence contracts. It is safe to assume this, as there is no evidence of the existence of procurement regulations that apply to defence institutions, which constitutes a high corruption risk in defence procurement.

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there is no evidence of laws or procedures detailing how the Government discriminates in its selection of suppliers (see Q62A).

According to senior officers and officials within the MoD and the armed forces, such policies are not always implemented, and the mechanisms can be avoided in some cases. This gives commanders or chiefs the power to bypass the law and the implementation of policies.

According to our sources, there are no laws, but internal regulations that detail how the government discriminates in its selection of suppliers and contractors. According to our sources, suppliers must be registered in a few agencies, provide documents, and sign many papers concerning third parties, quality of goods, deliverables and so on, but no mention to corruption. In some contracts, there are indications about violating the anti-bribery laws of 1993. In strategic purchases (things more than 500 million), contracts are motivated politically and therefore, its agreements and contracts are more political (1), (2), (3).

As there are no laws, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable. According to our sources, laws and regulations on government contractor selection criteria in the defence sector appear to be moderately implemented. However, there are still widespread violations of the contracts when it comes to third parties, receiving or giving bribes, and deliverables (1), (2), (3).

According to our sources, some laws and regulations define clearly the procedures and the process of discrimination against companies that are engaged in corruption practices. There are standardised lists and requirements that must be met to discriminate against a company, such as the previous failure in deliverables for quality and quantity and time, if the head of the company is on trial of corruption, or if the company is accused of corrupt activities(1,2,3). Articles 177, 178, 179 of Decree n°1039-2014, dated 13 March 2014, provide that companies can be excluded from the tender in case of corruption (4). Government Decree No. 2016-498, of 8 April 2016, sets up the conditions and procedures for excluding participation in public procurement (5).

According to our sources, these laws and regulations are applied strictly in all cases (1,2,3). The Ministry of Defence declared that the rules of Decree n°1039-2014 are also applied and respected (4).

There are no laws and regulations that describe the procurement mechanisms of the defence sector in relation to the selection of suppliers. It has been established throughout this assessment that Federal Law No. 43 of 2016 for the procurement process does not apply to defence procurement. Concerning defence contracting, Tawazun is considered the only national third party for private military companies and defence development and procurement. According to its mandates, defence contractors, awarded contracts in value of more than $10 million, must invest 60 per cent of the value of their contracts in local businesses or with domestic partners (1), (2), (3), (4). However, beyond this condition, there appear to be very few formal policies available around the minimum requirements for companies about compliance and business conduct. Even though there are no formal policies around the minimum standards for companies bidding for defence contracts, there is evidence of a UAE and US contract agreement that included a clause on corruption (5), (6), (7). As reported in the New York Times, the contract was signed between the Armed Forces GHQ (General Headquarters in Abu Dhabi) and a US-based private military contractor (Reflex Responses Management LLC) (8). The New York Times stated that, “the two parties hereto understand that no commission, remuneration or fees have been or shall be paid by way of tips, gifts, or personal payments granted directly or indirectly or otherwise by [the firm/contractor] to any officer, individual, civilian or UAE Armed Forces member, or any of the UAE governmental employees working within or outside the UAE representing a bribe or commission to ensure the signature of this contract”.

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicalbe, as there is no evidence to suggest that there are procedures and standards companies are required to have, such as compliance programmes and business conduct programmes, to be able to bid for contracts for the Ministry of Defence or armed forces. Although evidence suggests that some contracts explicitly include anti-corruption clauses, these do not amount to procedures or standards (1), (2), (3).

Country Sort by Country 62a. Formal policies Sort By Subindicator 62b. Consistent implementation Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 NA
Angola 0 / 100 0 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 NA
Cameroon 0 / 100 NA
Cote d'Ivoire 50 / 100 50 / 100
Egypt 0 / 100 NA
Ghana 25 / 100 25 / 100
Iraq 0 / 100 0 / 100
Jordan 0 / 100 NA
Kuwait 0 / 100 NA
Lebanon 50 / 100 50 / 100
Mali 0 / 100 25 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 NA
Niger 50 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 0 / 100 NA
Oman 0 / 100 NA
Palestine 0 / 100 NA
Qatar 0 / 100 NA
Saudi Arabia 0 / 100 NA
Tunisia 25 / 100 100 / 100
United Arab Emirates 25 / 100 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