The law on the fight against corruption and other related offences in the Republic of Benin doesn’t provide any formal and clear process for asset disposal [1]. People interviewed were not able to provide any details about this [2][3][4]. The legal and administrative framework for the transfer of assets in the defence sector appears to lack transparency and formalization. There are no procedures or guidelines, law or policy on how military property or assets are transferred whether vehicles, buildings, or other material resources. This situation can lead to opacity in the management of military public assets.

The law on the fight against corruption and other related offences in the Republic of Benin doesn’t provide any formal and clear process for asset disposal [1]. People interviewed were not able to provide any details about this. [2][3][4]

The law on the fight against corruption and other related offences in the Republic of Benin doesn’t provide any formal and clear process for asset disposals[1]. People interviewed were not able to provide any details about this. [2][3][4]

There is no formalised process for the transfer of assets in the Defence sector. This is done informally and no information is available. [1][2]

For some goods, such as cars, calls for tenders are sometimes published. But this does not always happen [1] Sometimes, some goods are sold after informal discussions between the authorities of the Ministry of Defence and interested persons [2]. Although there is some transparency in vehicle disposals, there is a lack of clarity across other asset categories

Only published financial information on sales is regularly available. [1] [2] This information can be found on the websites of institutions such as the Autorité de Régulation des Marchés Publics and on business opportunity websites in Burundi, as well as in print and online newspapers here in Burundi. [3][4] Here again, the accuracy of this information is not verified as sometimed official information gives figures that are underestimated in relation to reality. [1] [2]

In Cameroon, several legal frameworks address the management of public assets, including disposals, particularly in the defence sector. The law n° 2007/006 (2007) and law N° 2018/012 (2018) offer comprehensive guidelines on financial management and handing of public assets, while the Loi n° 2018/011 (2018) aims to promote transparency in public financial management.[1][2][3] Decrees such as Decree No. 2001/048 (2001) and Decree No. 2018/366 (2018) establish procedures for asset disposal and public procurement.[4][5]. Despite these legal frameworks, implementation remains weak, especially in the defence sector, where asset disposals are often carried out without proper documentation or public disclosure.[6] There is no specific internal unit responsible for overseeing asset disposals, which worsens the situation. The ACCC’s 2023 Report reveals enforcement gaps and persistent discrepancies in asset management, undermining transparency and accountability.[7]

In Cameroon, the asset disposal process faces significant transparency challenges, with limited publicly available information on asset disposals and their financial outcomes. This lack of transparency weakens accountability and raises concerns about potential corruption. Although legal frameworks such as the Loi n° 2007/006 and Loi N° 2018/012 guide the process, their enforcement is weak.[1]. Disposal transactions and financial outcomes are not publicly disclosed, which hinders oversight and accountability, thereby creating an environment susceptible to corruption.[1][2]

The transparency of financial results from asset disposals in Cameroon’s defence sector is severely lacking. While legal frameworks for transparency exist, their implementation is weak, and financial outcomes, such as sale prices and allocation of proceeds, are rarely made publicly available or reported regularly. This lack of disclosure means citizens cannot verify if the transactions are conducted fairly or if the proceeds are properly managed.[1] This opacity fosters concerns about corruption and weakens accountability in the asset disposal process.[2] There is no specific internal unit to oversee the process, and while coordination mechanisms are in place within the ministries, these are limited in effectiveness due to the lack of rigorous monitoring.

Defence-related assets are managed by the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces General Staff. With regard to rolling stock, when it is taken out of service, it may be offered for sale to military personnel and civilians [1]. The National Security Council is responsible for arms procurement. Although the country does not produce any, the regulations in force are those of the ECOWAS Community. The country has signed the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons, Their Ammunition and Other Related Materials. Côte d’Ivoire also has a National Commission for the Control of the Proliferation and Illicit Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons, established by Decree No. 2009-154 of 30 April 2009, in accordance with the recommendations of the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW). ComNat-ALPC is the public institution responsible for assisting the Ivorian government in the design and implementation of its national policy to combat the proliferation, illicit circulation and misuse of SALW [2]. This institution is technically responsible for the disarmament and destruction of State-controlled stockpiles [3].

There is no formal process for publishing these asset transfers, although some are made public in the press [1, 2]. ComNat-ALPC also does not publish detailed information on these activities [3].

Little information is available on the financial results of these asset disposals. Some information has been published in the press, but it is not very detailed [1, 2].

The Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) and the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) primarily establish the regulatory framework for asset acquisition and disposal in the public sector. In 2020, the Public Procurement Authority, in accordance with Section 3(c), issued the Guidelines for Disposal of Goods and Equipment. These guidelines offer practical guidance on managing the disposal process and selecting the most appropriate disposal method. Annex A of the guidelines includes a flowchart that outlines the necessary steps and a checklist to facilitate these actions. Also, the Government of Ghana has enacted a regulation to the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921)
(Public Financial Management Regulations, 2019 (L.I. 2378)). Regulation 156 of the
PFM Regulations, 2019 (L.I. 2378) mandates, the Principal Spending Officer of a covered entity to establishment a Fixed Asset Coordinating Unit (FACU) whose
role is to ensure a central coordination and execution function of a Covered Entity’s fixed asset management (3)

Furthermore, regarding oversight and advisory roles, internal audit units, as stipulated by Section 3(2)(b) of the Internal Audit Agency Act, 2003 (Act 658), are responsible for ensuring that the financial activities of Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), as well as Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs), comply with applicable laws, policies, plans, standards, and procedures, including those related to asset disposal. Despite these regulations, media reports have highlighted deals involving the sale of land that appear to have been conducted outside formal procedures for asset disposal. (4)

Section 7.2 of the Guidelines for Disposal of Goods and Equipment (2020) emphasizes the importance of advertising tenders in national dailies and other newspapers or publications that might generate interest in the items being offered. The choice of publication medium is at the discretion of the Entity Head. However, planned disposals are typically not announced in advance and are not published on the ministry’s website (2).

The financial outcomes from asset disposals are documented in the accounts of the Ministry of Defence. However, challenges in maintaining an effective assets register have, in some cases, impacted the accurate determination of disposal values for certain assets. Additionally, there have been allegations concerning the sale of military lands, including claims that the terms of the contract are unknown (1) (2)

The Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (2015) requires all government entities, including the Ministry of Defence to follow an annual Asset Disposal Plan structured by the Accounting Officer. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has tasked the Deputy Director of Chains and Management Services with executing disposal of obsolete or surplus items, aiming for value for money [1].
The Deputy Auditor General is responsible for systems audits to provide assurance that key operating systems such as cash management, procurement, transport revenue/AIA, assets management etc. are functioning effectively and that the Ministry’s strategic and operational objectives are being met consistently, efficiently, and in a cost-effective manner. They verify and analyse periodical financial returns that are required to be submitted to Treasury by Ministry of Defence from time to time such as pending bills returns, expenditure returns, impress returns, revenue and AIA returns, staff returns, vehicle returns etc. [2].

Internal audit teams regularly undertake spot checks to ensure that processes are being conducted correctly and in accordance with established guidelines. If the audit unearths any issues or discrepancies, they promptly deploy thorough investigations to identify the root causes and implement necessary corrective actions. This proactive approach helps in mitigating risks and improving overall organisational performance [3]. Section 73 and Section 155 of the PFM PFM Act 2012 requires the National Government to maintain internal auditing arrangements [4]. Internal audit undertakes spot checks to understand whether procedures were followed from start to finish. If the books are not balanced, they flag the issues [4]. Section 165 of the PFM Act requires the Accounting Officer to ensure that the national government entity develops risk management strategies, which include fraud prevention mechanism; and a system of risk management and internal control that builds robust business operations [6].

The Ministry of Defence publishes planned disposals in its website although this is not consistent and comprehensive as some of this information is often published in the dailies. The information provided includes details of what is being disposed, the amounts required to pay to participate in purchases is also included. The Auction notice is published and accessible in KDF’s website [1]. The supply chain management services at the Ministry is responsible for Interpreting and implementing the Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act 2015 regulation 16. In addition to disposal of unserviceable/ obsolete/surplus stores ensuring value for money is obtained, they are also responsible for preparing statutory reports required under the Public Procurement and Disposal Act and interpreting the Regulations and guidelines of the Public Procurement oversight Authority [2]. Catalogues giving full details of items are usually sold and bidders are open to obtain them during viewing days. The amounts paid for the catalogue is usually a non – refundable fee of KSh 1,000.00 (One Thousand Shillings).

While MOD publishes planned disposals on their website and in daily newspapers, information on the financial results of asset disposals is never provided. This information is absent from both auction notices and newspaper announcements [1].

Asset disposal and management are one of the ten priority areas of internal audit processes.[1] Research with the defence sector corroborated policy on asset disposal and management. The process of internal audit tends to assess the items for disposal in terms of their depreciation and salvage value. Following a careful internal audit on asset management and disposal, a comprehension report is then presented to senior management for action. 2] Actionable recommendations are often delayed because a strong internal control process to enforce the policy is lacking. The objective of the internal audit process is to promote continuous improvement in risk management, control and governance processes in the public sector. This requires implementation of recommendations contained in internal audit reports. However, the defence sector has been resistant to internal audit practices.[3]
The Internal Audit Agency has also introduced the Public Sector Compliance Scorecard and Pentana Audit Software to standardise audits and identify non-compliance across ministries and agencies,[4] although there is no documented evidence, these tools are specifically applied to defence sector asset disposal processes.

Despite the process put in place to account for asset management, the implementation of the process remains a challenge. Firstly, internal audit reports on asset management and disposal are not accessible externally. They are meant for internal purposes.[1] Secondly, due to the internal nature of such assessment, equipment such as vehicle are disposed of without knowing how the process unfolded. [2] Knowledge of the disposal process is often restricted to the accounting, audit and senior management departments.

The GAC Audit Report begins by addressing asset acquisition, management and then disposal. The Audit Report tries to investigate how transactions arising from asset disposals are accounted for in the financial report. The report highlights infractions within the Public Financial Management Law. It also recommends the appropriate mitigating measures to adopt in remedying this challenge. For example, the GAC Audit Report for at least some entities such as the Liberia Water & Sewer Corporation (LWSC), includes an examination of asset disposal, noting instances in which vehicles were disposed of without authorisation or reporting, and fixed assets could not be verified.[1]
However, detailed information on disposal of accounting, infractions under the PFM Law, and recommended mitigation actions, are not readily available to the public.”[2][3] Furthermore, there is currently no publicly available evidence regarding how defence sector assets are disposed in Liberia [4].

In general, the administration, including the Ministry of Defense, does not sell assets except in the case of the “condemnation for sale of administrative vehicles” procedure [1]. According to the Ministry of Finance, “the Administrative Garage gives its opinion in the report of condemnation of reformed vehicles after physical assessment. It establishes the technical sheet and the price. In addition to the others documents to be provided in this regard, the certified photocopy of the registration document of the vehicle to be condemned must be
attached to the file” [2]. But the Public Procurement Code does not directly mention asset transfers [3]. The Ministry of Defence and ARAI have established a partnership to ensure the preservation of vehicles intended for sale. Under this agreement, the management of administrative vehicles will be entrusted to the Ministry of Defence, which will be responsible for controlling them [4]

Very little information is available regarding asset sales. The public does not always have information [1][2]. Only people directly linked to the transfer have the available information. Thus, it is not uncommon for the transferred assets to go to people close to those who have the information. A list of all the cars concerned will be published on a notice board[3].

No information on the financial results of asset disposals is available to the majority of Ministry staff or to the public [1][2].

Despite extensive research, there is no evidence of the existence of a structured process for assets disposal. In principle, however, the Directorate General for the Administration of State Property has a right of review over the disposal of state assets.[1][2] The Regional Directorate of State Property Administration is responsible for translating, in the form of programs, the orientations of State policy in terms of management of built heritage, tangible and intangible movable heritage of the State and for ensuring the application of regulations relating to accounting of materials[3].

There is no formalised process for the disposal of assets specific to the defense sector.[1][2][3]

There is no evidence of asset disposals in the defence and security sector so this indicator is marked Not Applicable.[1][2][3]

There is an internal unit responsible for advising and supervising the procedures regarding asset disposal processes, information on these disposals and the proceeds from their sales, as well as carrying out internal audits [1]. There is a coordinating body within the ministry that is responsible for aggregating disposal database reports [2]. There is also a unit responsible for managing all assets, including acquisitions and allocations [3]. In the organic structure of the Ministry of National Defence there are three institutions that guarantee the internal control and supervision of acquisitions, disposals, registration and archiving, namely: National Defence Inspection; Directorate of Logistics and Heritage; and the Department of Documentation Management and Archive.

In Mozambique, according to the Law on the Organisation and Functioning of Public Administration, the Public Administration must operate based on the principle of transparency [1] and public procurement tenders must be published in the most widely circulated newspapers [2]. Thus, the Ministry of National Defence integrates the Armed Forces into the Public Administration and is subject to this principle.
However, in practice there is no evidence that planned or completed disposals of defence assets are proactively published or made accessible to the public. The official website of the MoD [3] does not contain announcements, reports, or data on asset disposals. Despite the legal framework and stated commitments, practical transparency is minimal.

The financial results of the sales are regularly available to the public in the General State Account [1], which is sent to the Assembly of the Republic, by means of a Ministerial Order [2], in accordance with the Decree that establishes rules for the implementation of the Economic and Social Plan and State Budget – PESOE [3]. The General State Account contains aggregated figures for “Venda de Bens de Investimento” (sales of investment assets) under capital revenues. The data includes overall values but does not include a detailed breakdown by asset category or sector [4].

As of January 2025, there is no clear evidence that Niger has a formalized policy for the disposal of defense and security assets, despite efforts by the government and international partners since 2018.In August 2018, an assessment of Niger’s Weapons and Ammunition Management (WAM) framework was conducted by UNIDIR, ECOWAS, and the Nigerien government [1]. The findings revealed that Niger lacked the necessary resources for compliance with international arms control agreements, including those related to arms disposal and stockpile management. While the country is party to several international treaties, including the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), its national arms control legislation dates back to 1963 and remains obsolete. Although a new Firearms Bill was drafted in 2018, it has yet to be formally adopted. The Nigerien authorities reaffirmed their commitment to international arms control frameworks at the Ninth Conference of States Parties to the ATT (August 2023) and have taken steps to integrate international norms into national legislation. However, the lack of implementation and enforcement mechanisms continues to hinder progress [2].
The analysis of the Physical Security & Stockpile Management [1] identified severe deficiencies in storage facilities, particularly in border regions, leaving stockpiles vulnerable to terrorist attacks and illicit diversion. It was reported that seized weapons were often not destroyed or stored according to international stockpile management standards. Due to limited resources and inadequate oversight, some Nigerien security agencies incorporate seized weapons into their service arsenals, a practice that violates Article 17 of the ECOWAS Convention on SALW. While some services record these transfers, others do not, and weapons frequently change custody without standardized documentation, leading to record duplication and transparency issues [3].
A 2022 report by the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF) further underscored the critical weaknesses in Niger’s arms disposal mechanisms [4]. It highlighted the proliferation of small arms and light weapons (ALPC) in the Sahel, fueled in part by poor stockpile management and the failure to destroy surplus or obsolete weapons. Security forces lack the infrastructure and expertise to conduct effective arms disposal, and while some efforts have been made to mark weapons, tracing mechanisms remain inadequate. To address these challenges, DCAF launched a three-phase strategy focusing on legal reforms, capacity-building for security forces, and long-term support for stockpile management and arms disposal. However, despite these efforts, there is no publicly available evidence of a structured, government-led process for asset disposal or transparent reporting on proceeds from such disposals.

As of January 2025, there is no formalized process for the disposal of defense and security assets in Niger, and no publicly available information suggests that such a framework exists. The country also lacks the capacity and resources to engage in international tracing requests, and authorities have not conducted or reported any tracing efforts [1]. Additionally, the absence of a centralized registry for lost or stolen weapons makes it difficult to track and prevent diversions, further undermining oversight. [2] [3]

As of January 2025, there is no publicly available evidence indicating that Niger has conducted any formal asset disposal process for defense and security assets. Without a structured system for disposal, there is also no transparency regarding financial results or proceeds from such transactions [1] [2] [3].

Nigeria operates under a public asset disposal policy, rooted in the Public Procurement Act (2007) and the Public Finance Management framework, which require formal procedures for disposal of government assets and remittance of proceeds to the Treasury Single Account (TSA) [1]. To oversee compliance, the Attorney‑General’s inter‑ministerial Committee on Asset Disposal, with representation from the Army, Navy, Police, ICPC, and the Ministry of Finance, is tasked with reviewing and approving disposal modalities for defence assets [2]
For example, in 2021, the Nigerian Navy coordinated with the Committee to scrap vessels classified as beyond economical repair, selling them through open tender and remitting proceeds to the TSA as required [2]. While internal stakeholders commend the procedural alignment, former naval officers and investigative journalists critique continued opacity, suggesting that asset disposal remains vulnerable to manipulation and insider influence [3]. There is a formal disposal policy and oversight committee, but its process remains ad hoc and lacks consistent transparency [4].

There is little to no information publicly available about the process of asset disposal in the MOD. In the past, the MOD has placed on its website, the disposal of assets in accordance with federal government policy as one of its achievements [1]. Even though the Public Procurement Act (PPA) clearly provides for how government’s assets should be disposed [2], that of the MOD is rarely made public with no information available to the public given its exemption (except with Presidential approval) from the PPA.

Knowledge of financial results of asset disposals is not made public, particularly as it relates to the Ministry of Defence and other security sector governance. The Provisions of PPA does not apply to the defence and POCA only applies to management of assets recovered from criminals by relevant agencies, including the military and forfeited to the federal government. It has nothing to do with asset disposal in the defence sector [1,2].

Senegal disposes of its decommissioned military equipment through sale, donation or destruction, depending on the condition and age of the equipment. Military equipment in good condition but no longer needed by the Senegalese army may be sold to other countries or interested entities. The Directorate of Army Equipment follows strict procedures for the resale of decommissioned military equipment, as defined by Senegal’s public procurement code. [3] Regarding the transfer of assets, the procedures require that the amount be set, for each category of contract, in the general administrative clauses, as provided by Senegal’s public procurement code, which applies to all sectors, including the defence sector. [1][2]

In the event of cessation of assets, information on equipment put up for sale is made available to the public, but not all information is included. Interested parties can still contact the ministry for more information. Planned transfers may not be known in advance and are not regularly published on the ministry’s website or other dedicated platform to allow the competition to be fair .[1][2]

No information about the financial results of asset disposals is made public on the budget execution reports nor in supreme audit reports. [1][2]

The National Committee on Conventional Arms Control provides oversight of asset disposal to ensure compliance with relevant legislation on arms control while the Defence Disposal Solutions Division of Armscor is responsible for the disposal of assets on behalf of the Department of Defence. [1] Disposal is guided by an evaluation process as well as processes for determining the preferred bidders for the disposal of military material. [2] Database reports on disposals are not readily publicly available.

Planned disposals are published in advance on Armscor’s website via the Disposal and Defence Systems (DDS) tender notices, accessible to prospective buyers. [1] However, detailed technical information and transparency about the criteria for buyer selection are sometimes limited. Despite this, the publication of opportunities before a buyer is selected meets the requirement for advance notification. [2]

The disposal of assets is published in Armscor’s annual report in an aggregated form. [1]

South Sudan has a robust legal framework intended to promote an efficient, open and transparent public procurement and disposal of assets to all government departments including the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs. Towards this end, two important legislations have been adopted.
(1) The Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2018, which establishes the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDAA) a body mandated with regulating and overseeing public procurement in South Sudan [1]. The 2018 act not only prescribes different methods that can be used for procurement (tendering, direct procurement and restricted tendering) but also prescribes the procedures for disposal of public assets with the goal of ensuring fairness and transparency.
(2) Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Regulations, 2019 is also an important legislation since it provides regulations that help operationalise the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act of 2018. The guidelines in the 2019 legislation are more detailed and cover bidding documents, evaluation criteria, contract awards, and the roles and responsibilities of procurement entities.
Although there are detailed legislations on procurement and disposal, there is no evidence of internal audits that oversee the disposal. [3]

There is little or no information available publicly with regard to the disposal of public assets posing a significant challenge to accountability and transparency of the process. Although the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act was adopted in 2018 to establish a framework for the transparent management of public resources, the full implementation of this framework has delayed. The Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDAA), which is tasked with the oversight and regulation responsibility on matters to do with procurement and asset disposal was not established until February 17, 2023, when President Salva Kiir appointed the executive director and members of the board of directors [1]. Although this was an important milestone, the Authority has struggled to operate effectively due to lack of critical human resources. Efforts bridge this gap resumed in May 2024, when the PPDAA advertised for applications to fill 13 senior management positions, including key roles such as Director of Legal Affairs, Director of Internal Audit, and Director of Information and Communication [1]. This delay in the establishment and staffing of the PPDAA has resulted in a situation where individual ministries have likely been managing their own procurement and disposal activities without centralized oversight.
However, even if this is the case, the accessing such information is further hindered by the absence of functional websites for most government ministries and many key government institutions, including PPDAA and the Parliament, do not maintain accessible and functional websites. This lack of online presence severely limits public access to information regarding procurement processes and asset disposal. Currently, only a handful of ministries have established websites, Ministry of Environment and Forestry (http://mef.gov.ss/), Ministry of Finance and Planning (https://mofep-grss.org/), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (https://mofaic.gov.ss/), Ministry of General Education and Instruction (https://mogei.org/), Ministry of Health (http://moh.gov.ss/) Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management (https://mohadm-goss.org/), Ministry of Petroleum Website: http://www.mop.gov.ss/
Thus, to address this problem, significant improvements in the digital infrastructure and governance practices in South Sudan is needed. Improving the content and functionality of government websites, particularly those related to public procurement and asset disposal, is essential to fostering a culture of accountability and enabling the fruits of the 2018 Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act to be realised. [2]

While the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2018 aims to promote transparency, in practice, there seems to be a gap [1]. There is little or no information available publicly regarding the financial results of disposal of public assets posing a significant challenge to accountability and transparency of the process. Given that the disposal process is opaque and the slow pace of operationalising the PPDAA, results of financial resources from disposed public assets is inaccessible. According to a report by freedom house in 2023, the procurement and disposal of public assets are a major source of corruption in South Sudan. For example, the report found that “State resources, including oil revenues, are concentrated among elites associated with the president. Military commanders have gained enormous wealth through corrupt procurement deals. Kiir has facilitated corruption by appointing officials who were previously accused of embezzlement” [2].

The Asset Management Policies and Guidelines (2023), issued by the Accountant‑General, outline how all public-sector assets—including those held by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF)—should be recorded, valued, managed, and ultimately disposed of [2].
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA Authority) oversees and enforces compliance with disposal rules [1]. The Procurement and Disposal Unit (PDU) exists within MoD/UPDF and is explicitly tasked with managing procurement and disposal operations at the institutional level [5]. The asset management policy of the UPDF, including disposal procedures, provides guidelines for the handling of assets throughout their lifecycle. These procedures typically involve i) the determination of whether an asset is surplus or obsolete, often through technical evaluation. ii), a valuation process to determine the fair market value of the asset. Iii) the selection of an appropriate disposal method, which may include a public auction, tender, or direct sale, depending on the nature and value of the asset. iv) documentation of the disposal process, including records of valuations, bids, and sales. v), the application of proceeds from the disposal, in accordance with the UPDF Act and related regulations [4].
However, there is no public evidence available that the PDU maintains a centralised disposal database, or that the internal audit department compiles aggregated disposal reports [1][3][5].

The classification of a significant portion of UPDF procurements creates an environment where public scrutiny of asset disposal becomes exceedingly difficult. While there are instances where the UPDF advertises disposals on its website [1], the absence of detailed information renders these announcements largely ineffective. Furthermore, there is lack of information regarding planned disposals in advance and really publicised [2].

The Office of the Auditor General of Uganda’s 2023 report, detailing financial findings for the year ending June 30, 2023, is available online. The Public Accounts Committee reviews and scrutinises the UPDF financial reports, including disposal of assets.[1] [2]
However, there have been concerns regarding the completeness and transparency of these reports. In November 2024, PAC members highlighted discrepancies and omissions in the Auditor General’s reports, noting that some financial activities lacked detailed information, which could hinder effective oversight [3]. Regarding the financial results of asset disposals, the available information suggests that such data is generally presented in aggregate form within these reports [1[. Detailed, disaggregated data on specific asset disposals may not be regularly or publicly available, which can limit comprehensive public scrutiny. [4]

The Defence Procurement Act [Chapter 11:03], guides the defence forces on the disposal of assets belonging to the defence forces and how such will be utilised [1]. Section 90 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets states that the accounting officer of a procuring entity shall be responsible for ensuring that the entity, in accordance with this Act, disposes of its public assets that are unserviceable, obsolete or surplus [2]. The powers to dispose are given to the disposal committee, and Section 91 (1) of the same Act states that a procuring entity shall establish a disposal committee for the purpose of recommending the best method of disposing of unserviceable, obsolete or surplus public assets [2]. In addition, the Section 7 (e) of the Defence Procurement Act gives the Minister of defence and the Defence Procurement Board to utilise, such proceeds as may be realised from the disposal of redundant and obsolete equipment and scrap belonging to the Defence Forces [1]. According to the Defence Procurement Act, a Defence Procurement Fund bank account is created where all proceeds from the sale of disposed equipment will be kept and re-used in accordance with the Act [1]. Such funds will only be used as the Minister of Defence and the Defence Procurement Board deem necessary in accordance with the Act [1]. Therefore, any officer in the Ministry of Defence takes instructions on procurement and disposal of asserts from the Defence Procurement board while following the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [1,2]. There is an internal audit within the military which oversee the procedure on procurement and disposal of assets [3]. While in most instances the process is followed and it is clear from the Act, in certain cases, the commanders take short cuts and dispose the equipment [3]. There is also an internal auditor unit in the defence forces [3].

The disposal results are not published on the Ministry of Defence website [3]. However, in terms of the procedures, Section 91 (1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [Chapter 22:23], lays down the process of disposal in which it states that the entity responsible, shall establish a disposal committee which recommends the best method of disposing of unserviceable, obsolete or surplus public assets [1]. Section 92 (1-3) specifies the disposal procedure that an employee of a procuring entity who is in charge of any of the entity’s public assets shall without delay report to the entity’s disposal committee whenever such an asset under his or her charge becomes unserviceable, obsolete or surplus [1]. The disposal committee shall without delay consider any report in terms of subsection and recommend to the procuring entity’s accounting officer a method of disposing of the asset concerned, which method may include-
(a) transferring the asset to another procuring entity, with or without financial adjustment;
(b) selling the asset by public tender or by public auction;
(c) destroying, dumping or burying the asset;
(d) trading in the asset for another one; and
(e) any other suitable method that may be prescribed or recommend [1].

The accounting officer of the procuring entity shall notify the committee whether or not he or she accepts the recommendations, and if he or she- accepts them, the asset shall be disposed of in accordance with those recommendations; (b) rejects them, he or she shall, when notifying the disposal committee of the rejection or as soon as possible thereafter- (i) provide the committee with written reasons for the rejection; and (ii) send the authority a copy of the notice of rejection and the reasons for it; and (iii) refer the matter back to the disposal committee for further consideration. The Authority may issue written directions to procuring entities regarding the disposal of public assets that are unserviceable, obsolete or surplus [1]. Thus guided by the Defence Procurement Act [Chapter 11:03], the Minister of defence and the Defence procurement board may give directions and guide the committee and the accounting officer on its decisions thereof [2].

The financial results of the disposal of assets are not published on the Ministry of defence. This is despite that the Defence Procurement Act [Chapter 11:03] indicates that a Defence Procurement Fund bank account is supposed to be created, where the proceeds of disposed equipment are kept [1]. The funds will be withdrawn bankers’ drafts or cheques signed by any two persons authorised thereto by the Minister [1]. The financial records and financial transactions of the Fund will be audited subjecting it to the Auditor-General satisfy him/herself as to the safeguarding of the moneys in the Fund [2]. The audit reports are supposed to be presented before Parliament [2]. Even though the proceeds are supposed to go to the Defence Procurement Fund bank account, there are some instances in which such proceeds never reach the bank account and in the end benefits individual commanders and the defence sector fails to submit audited records to the Auditor General [3].