Q54.

Are trained professionals regularly deployed to monitor corruption risk in the field (whether deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions)?

54a. Corruption monitoring

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

54b. M&E policy

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

54c. Transparency

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

No evidence suggests that any trained professionals have been deployed to monitor corruption risks in the field. No information was found in the military magazine (1), on the website of the Ministry of Defence (2), or during a review of the local and international press. As outlined before, seminars conducted by the anti-corruption agency ONPLC have been targeted at civilian bureaucrats that work in at-risk areas in the public administration but not in the defence sector (3).

No evidence suggests that any trained professionals have been deployed to monitor corruption risks in the field, nothing was found in either the military magazine (1) or on the website of the Ministry of Defence (2); see the answer to question 54A.

This question has been scored Not Applicable because no evidence would suggest that any trained professionals have been deployed to monitor corruption risks in the field, for example, nothing was found in either the military magazine (1) or, on the website of the Ministry of Defence (2); see the answer to question 54A.

It is unclear whether trained professionals are deployed to monitor corruption risk in operations. The Ministry of Defence has an Inspector-General of National Defence who is tasked with the monitoring of human, material and financial resources, and can conduct probes, audits and inquiries, though there is no explicit mandate to assess corruption risks (1), (2).

There is no evidence that operational M&E guidelines exist and are being implemented. Angola has been engaged in the SADC Defence Inspector’s Working Group that has been developing guidelines and conducted field visits, though technical training has been conducted for senior defence and police personnel in South Africa. Since 2007, senior staff of the Ministry of Defence and armed forces, at times including Interior Ministry and National Police officials, participated in internal audit training in South Africa, conducted by South African lecturers within the bilateral defence cooperation framework (1), (2), (3).

The inspector general’s reports on the armed forces and national defence are not made public (1), (2), (3).

According to TI-DS (2016) “TCCs, including Burkina Faso, have no anti-corruption training for troops and commanders before they deploy on operations” (1). Over the years, Burkina Faso has deployed its military in many countries including the CAR, Haiti, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, DRC and North Suda, for peacekeeping purposes. As of today, Burkina Faso’s military is in Mali, the DRC, and Sudan. However, there is no evidence that the country deploys corruption monitoring staff or informal corruption monitors. Transparency International’s Defence and Security Program (TI-DS) has raised that issue, stating that, “troop-contributing countries (TCCs) do not take steps to control corruption in operational environments, including UN peace operations.” “Trained corruption monitors are not deployed to the field,” TI-DS said. The United Nations deploys many types of experts in its field missions; but rarely have they thought about deploying corruption monitors in these missions (TI- DS 2016) (1). At the domestic level, the government of Burkina Faso has deployed troops in the strategic zone of the Sahel region, which has continuously been the target of terrorist groups, including Ansaroul Islam, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and its affiliates, like the Group for Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM), and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (2). Again, there is no evidence of corruption monitors deployed with the military in these remote areas of the Sahel. Given the fact that corruption is widespread in all economic sectors, including the armed forces (3), and the low interest of the military in applying anti-corruption measures (4), the deployment of corruption monitors in peacekeeping operations is unlikely.

There is no evidence that corruption monitoring is conducted in operations. Thus, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

There is no evidence that corruption monitoring is conducted in operations. Thus, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

Although ethics in peacekeeping is taught in some institutions such as the International School Forces and forms part of the deployment training material that is mandated by all UN Peacekeeping missions, for some of which Cameroon have sent contingents to the Central African Republic [1], there is no evidence that Cameroon regularly deploys professionals to monitor corruption risks in the field. The lack of oversight mechanisms to monitor corruption risks within the country and the endemic corruption found within the ranks of the defence and security institutions in Cameroon [2] strongly suggest that such monitors are not sent when peacekeepers are deployed to the field. Research does not indicate any monitoring of corruption in peacekeeping missions [3].

The 2017 US State Department Human Rights Report states, “In the context of the fight against Boko Haram, local sources indicated that corruption-related inefficiencies and diversion of resources from their intended purposes continued to represent a fundamental national security vulnerability” [4].

Research does not indicate any monitoring of corruption in peacekeeping missions [1].

Research does not indicate any monitoring of corruption in peacekeeping missions [1]. Therefore this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

There is no evidence that Côte d’Ivoire’s military deploys trained professionals to monitor corruption in the field. There is also no evidence of informal MoD monitoring of corruption with non-experts. No references can be found in open sources that attest to regular corruption monitoring in the field (surveillance de corruption sur le terrain), though this does not mean that MoD does not use internal or informal means of its own to monitor integrity issues during operations.

For example, in a July 2018 monitoring report by the Brussels-based GRIP research centre, Côte d’Ivoire was said to be pursuing its reforms of the armed forces with the retirement of 2,168 military personnel by May 2018. Côte d’Ivoire was also reported to want to increase its contingent of MINUSMA in Mali from the current 150 soldiers to 600 soldiers, a request that the UN Security Council would need to approve. But there was no mention of field monitoring of corruption risk by trained professionals (1). In its previous monitoring report from 9 April 2018, GRIP carried no updates on the progress in the reforms of the armed forces. There was also no coverage of corruption issues in the defence sector (2). In its report from January 11, 2018, GRIP informed, among others, about the discovery of the arms cache found at the home of Souleymane Kamagate (Soul-to-Soul) in Bouaké in May 2017. It also informed about the continued reforms of the armed forces. There was no reference to corruption monitoring in the armed forces (3).

There is no evidence that there is any type of M&E guidance in the field (1).

As shown by 54A and 54B, there is no evidence of any corruption monitoring or of monitoring and evaluation while the armed forces are deployed or on peacekeeping missions (1). Therefore, there is no reporting that can be made available to oversight bodies, and this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

According to our sources, there are no trained and specialized professionals in the armed forces that are capable of monitoring corruption activities. Therefore, there is no deployment of professionals who could monitor corruption risks and activities in any operations (1), (2), (3), (4).

According to our sources, there is no M&E guidance for any committee or personnel who are specialized in monitoring corruption risks. (1), (2), (3).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there is no evidence that any form of corruption monitoring takes place in the field.

The country deploys no trained personnel for corruption monitoring. A range of public financial management regulations including PPA apply in the field, but there are no specifically trained professionals deployed to deal with and evaluate corruption risk (1), (2), (3), (4).

IIn 2018, the MOD’s budget allocated 335,441 GH Cedi for policy planning, and a monitoring and evaluation sub-programme (1). However, no operation was planned that included M&E activities in 2018 on corruption risks for missions (2). If M&E guidance is in place the documentation for peacekeeping operations is not published. There is no evidence that there is M&E guidance for missions on how to monitor corruption risks.

There is no evidence this monitoring is occuring, so this indicator is scored Not applicable.

There are very few corruption monitoring personnel who work under the head of the armed forces. They conduct few monitoring and checking missions inside Jordan, and rarely any outside Jordan. They are not well-trained, but they have financial auditing and political capacities. There is no evidence to support that Jordan deploys any trained personnel for corruption monitoring, or that it informally monitors corruption with non-expert personnel [1]. Information available on the UN’s website only includes information about the number of deployed personnel from Jordan and the band they fall under. The Jordanians on missions are either used as contingent troops, police, experts on missions or staff officers. It is important to note that Jordan only has 15 personnel deployed as experts on missions, 33 as staff officers, 747 as police, and 53 as contingent troops [2]. Other than peacekeeping, Jordan does not have major operations that require troops to be stationed. For example, Jordan’s involvement in Syria consisted of aerial bombardment rather than field troops deployment [3].

On missions, there is no such guidance. According to an officer who was deployed in a UN mission, they never received training about M&E or on corruption. Information about defence operations in Jordan is scarce. On Jordan’s peacekeeping missions, information only consists of number of deployed personnel and no further information is provided [1]. In addition to that, corruption is not treated as a strategic issue within defence, and thus it is safe to assume that no M&E guidance for missions on how to monitor corruption exists. There is no military doctrine on corruption, and the only law that exists about corruption and which applies to the armed forces, is Law No. 35 of the year 1966, Officers Service Law of the Armed Forces, issued in accordance with Article 126 of the Jordanian Constitution [2]. There is no evidence to support that M&E guidance exists. It is important to reiterate here, that information about defence operations is scarce as the majority of defence matters are considered state secrets and are classified under Jordan’s Protection of State Secrets and Documents Provisional Law No. 50 [3], and thus access to this information might be hindered due to the lack of transparency in relation to the operations of the armed forces.

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as with the lack of an M&E policy and the lack of information about deployed personnel to monitor corruption, it is not relevant within this context to assess transparency in relation to M&E reporting.

SAB officials and lawmakers scrutinise military missions and these are included in the SAB’s annual report, officials say. Auditors are, however, not deployed with the mission (1, 2 and 3). But Kuwait’s army is small and it is largely inactive, so officials say there is not much need to deploy anyone to monitor the few, small operations they are running.

There are currently no guidelines on corruption risks for missions (1, 2 and 3). The very idea is new as a concept to the SAB in general and they talked in their 2017 report about how they will try to focus on monitoring corruption risks starting in 2018, but so far there is no information available on the subject (4).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because auditing bodies and Parliament don’t have a policy of making mission reports available to the public. In fact these reports are made available to the SAB and Parliament (as well as the ACA if there is an investigation) but they, like other reports from the security agencies, tend to be in summary form and missing key information, state auditors said (1, 2 and 3)

The LAF does not deploy trained personnel for corruption monitoring. It informally monitors corruption through the Military Police that controls and monitors violations committed by military personnel (1). A source (2) and the LAF Directorate of Orientation also confirmed the role of the Military Police (3).

The LAF does not have M&E guidelines that specify how to monitor corruption (1). According to the LAF, the military operates under the laws related to it and internal rules to ensure discipline and order of military personnel (1).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as there are no corruption monitoring reports; the LAF does not have personnel specifically focused on M&E (1).

The assessor found no evidence that that corruption monitors are deployed in the field. A NOREF report notes that the Malian army lacks “a unified national moral compass to underwrite its military operations”.⁹ The military code of conduct does not reference corruption and there is a lack of corruption-focused training and strategic planning within the armed forces (see Q51, Q52, Q53). A defence attaché based in Bamako said that he was not aware of any elements within the FAMa working to monitor corruptions risks.¹²
There is overwhelming evidence that corruption has been endemic and widespread in the Malian army, gendarmerie and police for at least the last decade.¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ ¹¹ This strongly indicates that there are either no such trained professionals deployed to monitor corruption in the field or that any such experts are ineffective and lack any meaningful oversight.

The assessor found no evidence that that the government has produced any M&E guidance for the Malian armed forces. A NOREF report notes that the Malian army lacks “a unified national moral compass to underwrite its military operations”.1 The military code of conduct does not reference corruption and there is a lack of corruption-focused training and strategic planning within the armed forces (see Q51, Q52, Q53).

Because no personnel are deployed for corruption monitoring, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

There are certainly no reports published by the armed forces regarding corruption risks in military operations. The only public bodies to have produced reports examining corruption in the security forces are the BVG and the Supreme Court (see Q16C) and that was only at the behest of the IMF, which was withholding aid until an investigation was conducted. The BVG’s investigation into the acquisition of the presidential jet remains an exceptional case of any public oversight body daring to hold the armed forces accountable with regard to corruption.¹,²

No evidence was found that the country deploys trained personnel for corruption monitoring, and/or informally monitors corruption with non-expert personnel (1)(2)(3).

No evidence was found of M&E guidance for the mission on how to monitor corruption risks, whether deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions. Morocco is the 13th largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping operations (1)(2).

Such lack of evidence might indicate a lack of transparency which itself could imply corruption risks.

This sub indicator is marked as non applicable because Morocco does not deploy any personnel for monitoring.

There are regular joint missions conducted with RECAP-GIZ and IGSS to monitor corruption risks (1). Niger is a major contributor of troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations, in particular in Mali and Côte d’Ivoire. These officers are trained by the ICRC to observe international humanitarian law. The Military Code of 2003 (2), includes Articles 47 and 48 that allow the military police to follow up on all types of criminal behaviour (including corruption, which is described in Art. 228) in the field. However, the assessor found no information on corruption training prior to deployment (3).

The assessor found no evidence that there is M&E guidance for the mission on how to monitor corruption risks.

No evidence has been found for such reports to be public should they exist.

There is no evidence of active corruption risk monitoring during operations. The course content for the training provided by the Nigerian Army Defence Centre appears not to cover corruption monitoring. An examination of the content of the training provided did not identify corruption monitoring as a subject in the course. Discussions with a source also confirmed this (1).

There is no evidence of active corruption risk monitoring during operations. The Military Resource Centre recently held a series of training sessions on project management for defence personnel. The topics covered by the course included Introduction to project management (1).

Project planning:
– Work breakdown structure
– Project schedule development
– Critical path analysis
– Project monitoring and control
– Maximizing resources in project execution
– Critical success factors for projects
– Introduction to Microsoft Project 2007.

The course outline fails to cover the procedural basis for personnel to monitor corruption.

There is no evidence of active corruption risk monitoring during operations. Therefore, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

There is no evidence of the deployment of trained personnel for corruption monitoring in the field. As outlined above there is no anti-corruption training or provisions in place to monitor corruption in military operations (1), (2). There have been no recent deployments of Oman’s Royal Armed Forces in military operations, or peacekeeping missions, it is thus difficult to discern if there is any, even informal non-expert corruption monitoring (3), (4). There is no mention of corruption, including professionally trained corruption personnel on either the Royal Armed Forces or Ministry of Defence websites (2), (3). According to our sources, there are no trained officials who have received training on corruption risks that are deployed to monitor activities within the armed forces inside Oman or outside Oman (5), (6).

There is no evidence of any monitoring and evaluation guidance available for missions on how to monitor corruption risks (1), (2). As stated above there is no evidence of any corruption monitoring in the field (1), (3), (4), (5). There is no indication of trained professionals being deployed to carry out monitoring and evaluation in the field (6). Corruption is not explicitly mentioned in any documentation on the MoD or Royal Armed Forces websites (4), (5).

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there is no evidence that monitoring and evaluation of corruption risks takes place.

Reports concerning the military or army never make their way outside offices and closed rooms. “These are confidential information that nobody in the public had to have them” (1).

There is no mechanism for corruption monitoring, particularly for the armed and security forces (1). The only agency for auditing and controlling is the State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau, which mainly focuses on local bodies and ministries, including the MoI which governs the civil police, but not the military. Therefore, M&E does not exist within the armed forces (2).

There is no M&E mechanism within the armed forces. Annual reports are submitted to the head of the agency office, the prime minister’s office or the president’s office, but not as part of any system. According to two officers, the routine reports are never read by senior officers (1), (2). In many cases, these reports include numerical data about bureaucratic issues. In some cases, when there is public pressure about incidents that include the armed forces, an investigation occurs by special committees set up by the president or the prime minister (3). In general, there is no M&E guidance on how to monitor corruption risks; however, the Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission is responsible for following up on the M&E related to corruption found in any ministry, including the MoI (2). The Palestinian government does not have a specific M&E procedure manual, and there are no specific policies in this area. The Security Sector Strategic Plan 2017-2022 indicates weaknesses in this area in general (3).

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there is no M&E mechanism within the Armed Forces (1), (2). Other than a few statements (on social media by senior officers) that respond to allegations, no reports are public.

Qatar has very few defence operations (Eritrea, Yemen), but withdrew from both in 2017. However, there has not been any deployment of trained personnel to monitor corruption activities. [1,2]

There is no M&E guidance for missions on how to monitor corruption risks. [1,2] It has become clear that Qatar is not involved in any major fields to prompt the need for such mission-specific guidance, and that the defence sector is not subject to any form of scrutiny or monitoring. [3] These factors point to the fact that there is no M&E guidance for missions.

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there is no monitoring of corruption (see Q54A).

Qatar does not publish any reports on corruption and transparency as there are no such reports in the armed forces. There have not been any reports on corruption activities for the last four years. [1,2] Therefore, we assume that even if there are internal reports, they are not made public.

According to our sources, there are not trained personnel for corruption monitoring in the field (1), (2). Corruption has not been prioritized or even publicly mentioned by the government, until very recently when the crown prince and de facto ruler identified tackling corruption as one of the “pillars” of his national reform program (3). According to an expert on Gulf affairs, “the Saudi government has not to date deployed professionals to monitor corruption risk in the field” (4).

As there are no trained personnel on anti-corruption deployed in the field, M&E guidance for missions on how to monitor corruption risks does not exist (1), (2).

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable. As there are no trained personnel on anti-corruption deployed in the field, reports from missions on how to monitor corruption risks do not exist (1), (2).

According to our resources, the country does not deploy any trained officers for corruption monitoring in the field. The issue of corruption is not considered a strategic matter or even a matter of operational interest and therefore, there are not officers trained on the issue (1,2,3).

According to our sources, there are no M and E guidelines related to corruption monitoring in the units or on missions abroad (1,2,3).

This indicator is marked Not Applicable because the country does not deploy trained officers to monitor corruption, nor is there an M&E policy. No publicly available reports concerning this issue could be found, and none could be obtained as there is no policy on this (1,2).

The UAE deploys no trained personnel for corruption monitoring at any level during missions (1), (2). Research revealed that the majority of operations carried out by the UAE’s armed forces are peacekeeping missions (3), (4). The UAE’s history in peacekeeping started with their involvement in the 1976 Lebanese Civil War, as Emirati troops were deployed to Lebanon to bring peace to different areas affected by the war. In 2015, the UAE was also brought as part of the Saudi-led military intervention ‘Operation Restoring Hope’ in Yemen. Additionally, the UAE has also participated in peacekeeping missions in Somalia, Afghanistan, Jordan, as well as other missions.

Corruption is not considered a strategic issue in operations, there is no evidence to support that it is, and there is also no evidence of anti-corruption training taking place within the defence sector at all. There is no evidence of the existence of M&E guidance in any of the operations of the armed forces, in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Egypt, or in other peacekeeping missions (1), (2).

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable, due to the lack of information on trained professionals regularly deployed to monitor corruption risk in the field. There are no accessible reports. However, there are internal communications at senior levels that discuss and examine these issues (1), (2).

Country Sort by Country 54a. Corruption monitoring Sort By Subindicator 54b. M&E policy Sort By Subindicator 54c. Transparency Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Angola 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Cameroon 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Cote d'Ivoire 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Ghana 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Jordan 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Kuwait 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Lebanon 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Mali 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Niger 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Oman 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Palestine 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Qatar 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Saudi Arabia 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Tunisia 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
United Arab Emirates 0 / 100 0 / 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