Are the policies, administration, and budgets of the intelligence services subject to effective and independent oversight?
Burkina Faso score: 50/100
There is considerable and regular undue influence in the oversight of the intelligence service’s policies, administration, and budgets. It is likely its mandate results in limited power and resources to carry out the oversight.
A parliamentary committee or independent body (e.g., appointed by PM) is designated to scrutinise the intelligence service’s policies, administration, and budgets. It may occasionally be subject to undue influence from the executive or the military or its mandate is not always matched by the body’s powers and resources.
A parliamentary committee or independent body (e.g., appointed by PM) is designated to scrutinise the intelligence service’s policies, administration, and budgets. It functions without undue influence from the executive or the military. Its mandate is matched by the body’s powers and resources.
At the inception of the country’s National Investigation Agency (ANR) in March 2016, it was planned that a committee of control would be created within the National Assembly or Parliament to “avoid any deviation of the agency” (1). However, according to JeuneAfrique (2016), a “timetable is set up to to make the Agency operational by June 2017, was approved by the Head of State” (1). This implies that the ANR had only existed for a year at the time and that the parliamentary committee is getting ready to scrutinise its policies, administration and budget. Based on a statement by a security source, claiming that they want to build a solid and well-organized institution; and that this requires both time and resources; it can be assumed that the parliamentary committee will operate independently from the executive and the military (1). However, a look at the work of other national control institutions such as the ASCE-LC; and to what extent they are independent, contrasts the aforementioned assumption. In practice, the Parliament remains heavily dependent on the government, despite the constitutional separation of powers, although the provisions of Article 84 clearly stating that the Parliament controls the actions of the government (3). The government has been criticized for not releasing its information (4), and for protecting some officials (5). Therefore, the parliamentary committee appointed to scrutinize the ANR may occasionally come under undue influence from the executive.
1. “Burkina: objectif juin 2017 pour l’Agence nationale de renseignement,” Jeune Afrique, July, 1, 2016, http://www.jeuneafrique.com/mag/336844/politique/burkina-objectif-juin-2017-lagence-nationale-de-renseignement/.
2. “Burkina Faso: 2018 Country Review,” Country Watch, 2018. http://www.countrywatch.com.
3. Constitution of Burkina Faso (1991), https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Burkina_Faso_2012.pdf?lang=en.
4. “Burkina Faso adopts two anti-corruption laws,” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2015, accessed May 31, 2018, https://www.unodc.org/westandcentralafrica/en/new-2015-burkina-faso-anti-corruption-laws.html.
5. “Burkina Faso 2017 Human Rights Report,” Bureau of Democracy, United States Department of State, 2017, https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277217.pdf.
Burkina Faso score: NEI/100
The oversight function has little to no influence over the intelligence services.
The oversight function does not have regular access to classified information. It may meet less frequently than every 6 months.
The oversight function has access to classified information and meets at least every 6 months to review budget and expenditures, personnel issues, and policies of the intelligence services. Findings are rarely published.
The oversight function has access to classified information and meets at least every 6 months to review budget and expenditures, personnel issues, and policies of the intelligence services. Though meetings are held behind closed doors, a summary of findings is published.
The oversight function has access to classified information and meets at least every 2 months to review budget and expenditures, personnel issues, and policies of the intelligence services. Though meetings are held behind closed doors, a summary of findings is published.
This indicator has not been assigned a score due to insufficient information or evidence.
As the parliamentary committee has not yet produced a report on its work, it is difficult to appreciate the effectiveness of its work.
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||21a. Independence||21b. Effectiveness|
|Albania||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Algeria||0 / 100||NA|
|Angola||0 / 100||NA|
|Argentina||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Armenia||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Australia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Azerbaijan||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Bahrain||0 / 100||NA|
|Bangladesh||0 / 100||NA|
|Belgium||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Botswana||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Brazil||75 / 100||0 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||50 / 100||NEI|
|Cameroon||0 / 100||NA|
|Canada||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Chile||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|China||0 / 100||NA|
|Colombia||NEI||50 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||0 / 100||NA|
|Denmark||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Egypt||0 / 100||NA|
|Estonia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Finland||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|France||50 / 100||75 / 100|
|Germany||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Ghana||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Greece||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Hungary||50 / 100||100 / 100|
|India||0 / 100||NA|
|Indonesia||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Iran||0 / 100||NA|
|Iraq||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Israel||50 / 100||100 / 100|
|Italy||75 / 100||100 / 100|
|Japan||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Jordan||0 / 100||NA|
|Kenya||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Kosovo||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Kuwait||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Latvia||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Lebanon||0 / 100||NA|
|Lithuania||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Malaysia||0 / 100||NA|
|Mali||0 / 100||NA|
|Mexico||0 / 100||50 / 100|
|Montenegro||50 / 100||75 / 100|
|Morocco||0 / 100||NA|
|Myanmar||0 / 100||NA|
|Netherlands||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|New Zealand||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Niger||0 / 100||NA|
|Nigeria||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|North Macedonia||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Norway||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Oman||0 / 100||NA|
|Palestine||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Philippines||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Poland||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Portugal||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Qatar||0 / 100||NA|
|Russia||25 / 100||50 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||0 / 100||NA|
|Serbia||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Singapore||0 / 100||NEI|
|South Africa||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|South Korea||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|South Sudan||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Spain||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Sudan||0 / 100||NA|
|Sweden||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Switzerland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Taiwan||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Thailand||0 / 100||NA|
|Tunisia||0 / 100||NA|
|Turkey||0 / 100||NA|
|Uganda||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Ukraine||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||0 / 100||NA|
|United Kingdom||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|United States||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Venezuela||0 / 100||NA|
|Zimbabwe||0 / 100||NA|