Are the principal aspects of the financing package surrounding major arms deals, (such as payment timelines, interest rates, commercial loans or export credit agreements) made publicly available prior to the signing of contracts?
Burkina Faso score: 0/100
Details of the financing package are not publicly available. There may be no information on whether a financing package exists at all.
The existence of a financing package and the identity of the provider are normally made public, but no further details are likely to be available.
Some details of the financing package are made publicly available, and key elements such as the sums involved and the payment deadlines are included. However details on matters such as interest rates and rules and regulations surrounding default penalties are likely to be limited.
Most details of the financing package are made publicly available prior to the signing of the contract, though some aspects of the package are less precisely detailed than other aspects.
Principal aspects of the financing package surrounding major arms deals are comprehensively detailed and made publicly available after the signing of the contracts. This information includes payment timelines, interest rates, commercial loans or export credit agreements.
Most defence purchases are made through single-sourced procurement contracts, which raises many concerns on transparency, democratic oversight, value for money, and corruption risks (2). There is no open competition taking place for purchases in the defence sector, whether it is restrictive or single-sourced (3). The Executive Secretary of the National Anti-Corruption Network (REN-LAC) says, “most high ranking officers have no idea about how the arms purchase is made” (3), which means that the information is not made available internally either. The government, including the defence ministry, does not provide the public with access to its information (4), and no law provides the citizens with a right to request government’s information either (6). Indeed, the financing package surrounding major arms deals probably falls under the provisions of Article 6 of Law N° 039 (2016) relating to the purchase of ‘secret defence’ items, which do not comply with the publicity requirements under Article 21. Pyman, Wilson, and Scott (2009) state that, “defence tended to be treated as a special entity within government, often appearing exempt from the usual rules of scrutiny, oversight and procedures to ensure competition in its procurement processes, often justified with reference to national security concerns” (5), (6).
1. “Law N° 039 – On the general regulation of the public order,” (2016), https://www.assembleenationale.bf/IMG/pdf/loi_039_portant_commande_publique.pdf.
2. Mark Pyman, Regina Wilson, and Dominic Scott, “The Extent of Single Sourcing in Defence Procurement and its relevance as a corruption risk: A first look,” Defence and Peace Economics 20, N° 3 (2009): 215–232, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10242690802016506.
3. Executive Secretary of the National Anti-Corruption Network (REN-LAC), interview with author, June 20, 2018.
4. “Burkina Faso Country Report,” GAN Institute, 2018, https://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/burkina-faso.
5. BTI 2018: Burkina Faso Country Report,” Transformation Index BTI, https://www.bti-project.org/en/reports/country-reports/detail/itc/bfa/.
6. “Burkina Faso Investment Climate Statement 2013,” United States Department of State, 2013, https://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2013/204611.htm.
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Algeria||0 / 100|
|Angola||0 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||0 / 100|
|Cameroon||0 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||0 / 100|
|Egypt||0 / 100|
|Ghana||0 / 100|
|Jordan||0 / 100|
|Kuwait||0 / 100|
|Lebanon||25 / 100|
|Mali||0 / 100|
|Niger||0 / 100|
|Nigeria||0 / 100|
|Oman||0 / 100|
|Palestine||0 / 100|
|Qatar||0 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||0 / 100|
|Tunisia||0 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||0 / 100|