There is no evidence concerning military disposals because this is consider as a secret of defence [1][2][3].

There is no evidence concerning military disposals because this is consider as a secret of defence so this indicator is marked Not Applicable. [1][2][3].

There is no evidence concerning military disposals because this is consider as a secret of defence so this indicator is marked Not Applicable[1][2][3].

The transfer of assets is one of the items that is not subject to any control. Even the general inspection is unable to carry out controls on this. [1][2]

Asset disposals are not scrutinised by an oversight body of any form so this indicator is marked Not Applicable.The transfer of assets is one of the items that is not subject to any control. Even the general inspection is unable to carry out controls on this. [1][2]

Asset disposals are not scrutinised by an oversight body of any form so this indicator is marked Not Applicable.The transfer of assets is one of the items that is not subject to any control. Even the general inspection is unable to carry out controls on this. [1][2]

Scrutiny of asset disposals in Cameroon’s defence sector is weak, with limited independent oversight and poor accountability. While CONSUPE and CONAC are responsible for audits, political interference hampers their effectiveness, preventing rigorous audits. Internal oversight by the Ministry of Defence is non-transparent, with audit results rarely made public. A civil society advocate noted that the lack of independent monitoring and the closed nature of disposals contribute to a lack of accountability.[1] Allegations of misappropriation of funds from surplus equipment sales also highlight insufficient scrutiny.[2] Audits, when conducted, are irregular and lack thoroughness, and there is no public reporting on the financial outcomes.

In Cameroon, oversight of defence asset disposals is limited, with reports generally unavailable to the public. Bodies like CONAC and CONSUPE are responsible for monitoring, but political interference undermines their independence and effectiveness. As a result, scrutiny is weak and inconsistent. Asset disposal reports are rarely disclosed,[1] and when oversight occurs, it lacks transparency and comprehensiveness. Allegations of mismanagement, including embezzlement of funds from surplus military equipment sales, further highlight the system’s opacity.[2]

In Cameroon, independent and transparent scrutiny of defence asset disposals is inadequate. Reports on these disposals are not publicly available, and oversight bodies like CONAC are often subject to political influence.[1]. There is limited evidence of systematic auditing, and interviews confirm that asset disposal reports are rarely made public, restricting transparency and accountability.[1][2] This deficiency in independent scrutiny fails to prevent potential corruption or mismanagement in asset disposals.

Côte d’Ivoire has a General Inspectorate of the Armed Forces (IGA), a Comptroller General of Defence Finance and a Monitoring and Evaluation Unit within the Ministry of Defence. In principle, these bodies are responsible for ensuring compliance with budgetary rules, carrying out inspection, study and information tasks, and monitoring and evaluating the actions of the armed forces [1]. These bodies are not external to the defence institutions. The country also has a court of justice, the Court of Auditors. It has the dual status of supreme court of public finance and institution of the Republic. The Court of Auditors judges the accounts of public accountants, the accounts of de facto accountants and mismanagement. It monitors the management of government departments, national public institutions and local authorities. However, the Court’s reports do not mention any audit of the disposal of assets [3].

Asset disposals are not monitored by an external and independent oversight committee. All oversight institutions are under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence [1, 2]. However, the Court of Auditors has questioned the funding of the CNS’s activities, which includes the funding of a unit responsible for combating money laundering [3, 4].

Only the reports of the Court of Auditors are available and published annually. Although they mention the treatment of military personnel and the financing of certain operations, the reports make no mention of issues relating to the disposal of assets [1, 2].

The Public Procurement Authority, the Auditor General, and the Controller and Accountant General are all empowered to scrutinize asset disposals, particularly regarding revenue generated from such disposals. Additionally, the investigative functions of the Inspector General of the Ghana Armed Forces can be utilized to examine asset disposal processes. However, in practice, the extent to which these measures are applied often depends on the level of political interest and involvement in a specific transaction. Transactions involving the sale of capital assets, such as land, are typically the least scrutinized and in some cases are only brought to public attention after the political figure overseeing the disposal has left office. (2)

The military follows a rigorous process for the disposal of most of its assets, ensuring transparency and adherence to established procedures. However, despite the absence of direct evidence indicating executive or military interference in general asset disposal, certain cases involving the sale of lands and bungalows owned by the Ghana Armed Forces (2) suggest possibility of influence from the executive branch and other civilian actors.

Aggregated audit reports are provided on the website of the Auditor General. These reports do not delienate information on asset disposal. (1)

Asset disposals are regularly scrutinised by the OAG and the scrutiny is thorough and formalised. In June 2022, the OAG scrutinised MOD’s fixed assets and noted that payment on acquisition of property plant and equipment items was not capitalised, while the cost of acquisition and proceeds from disposal of these items were treated as payments and receipts items respectively [1]. The reports are largely classified and therefore the level of scrutiny is not immediately known [2].

While there has been no direct interference in the scrutiny process, access to information has required diplomatic navigation. When the OAG has encountered challenges accessing classified information, it has pursued formal channels – either by writing to Parliament or seeking the courts’ guidance [1]. During a recent Special Audit ordered by Parliament, the Ministry of Defence demonstrated conditional cooperation by allowing the audit team to review original documents on-site, though maintaining confidentiality restrictions by not permitting document copies [2].

The Office of the Auditor General, despite its efforts to submit timely reports to Parliament, faces significant delays due to lengthy parliamentary debate processes that create a backlog. Article 229(7) of the Constitution requires the Auditor-General to “submit to the National Assembly a report on the accounts of the National Government, and the accounts of any other public entity” within six months after each financial year ends. While the law mandates report debates, delays in the parliamentary process have created backlogs in addressing key findings. These legal provisions, though designed to strengthen Parliament’s oversight role and enhance public sector accountability, face challenges from bureaucratic delays and resource constraints [1]. To maintain independence and transparency, Article 249(2)(a) and (b) guarantees the Auditor-General’s independence to conduct audits without external direction or authority [2, 4]. The resulting reports are publicly available through the OAG website and Parliament [3]. This transparency is crucial, as Parliament must debate these reports to hold government officials accountable for any financial mismanagement, waste, or corruption identified in the audits [2].
The Auditor-General’s reports, which include commentary on asset disposal practices, are published within six months of financial year-end and made available publicly through the OAG and parliamentary websites.These reports include commentary on disposal practices, such as the KOFC scrap sales, but provide only summary figures and general explanations—lacking full detail or breakdowns of individual disposals [5].

Independent scrutiny of asset disposals by Liberia’s defence establishments is conducted by the General Auditing Commission (GAC), whose audit reports are publicly accessible. Recent audits have revealed significant deficiencies in transparency and compliance with asset management regulations. For instance, the Ministry of National Defense (MoD) failed to provide sufficient documentation for payments totalling over US$2.5 million, including missing payment vouchers and delivery notes. This lack of documentation hinders the verification of asset disposals and adherence to internal control regulations.[1]
However, this scrutiny is not very regular. The report available online corresponds to the Auditor General’s Report on the Ministry of National Defense for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2021. It was published in July 2024. Although scrutiny is thorough and formalised, scrutiny is irregular in nature.

The GAC is an independent, constitutionally mandated body that supports legislative oversight in the management of public resources. It scrutinises procurement, assets acquisition and management disposal. The GAC has managed to maintain its independence without documented political interference. For instance, according to the Open Budget Index (OBI), the GAC provides adequate budget oversight with a score of 61/100.[1] The recommendation in the OBI relates to adequate funding to perform fully as an independent body, but it does not involve recommendation regarding potential political interference.
Instead, its work and reports have contributed to civil society’s campaign for greater accountability and the call for implementation of the GAC’s reports. The work of the GAC is consistent with the National Defense Act of 2008 which calls for an open and transparent process of asset disposal. Also, the GAC is protected by a statute and the Auditor General is tenured and not threatened by political transition from one government to the next. [2][3][4]

Audits conducted by the General Auditing Commission (GAC) are published and accessible to the public. The GAC reports are formally submitted to the legislature’s Public Accounts Committees (PAC) for review and legislative account.[1] Fiscal transparency reports have highlighted several deficiencies, including the lack of timely public availability of budget documents and audit reports, incomplete budgets, and the existence of off-budget accounts not subject to adequate oversight. However, reports come with multi-year delays; for example, a consolidated audit for 2017–2021 was published only in 2024.[2][3]
While these reports sometimes reference shortcomings in asset management and disposal, such as insufficient data to certify compliance with internal control regulations, they do not publish detailed, standalone audit reports on asset disposals themselves, and available references are often embedded as brief findings within broader financial audits. [4]

Financial Control, as an institution, ensures the regularity of acts with financial implications [1]. It is therefore up to it to control the acts of disposal of shares. But these controls are superficial to the extent that the vehicles that a Ministry (such as that of Defense) transfers are a priori of zero value, that is to say vehicles intended for scrapping [2]. Financial Control does not attach major importance to the acts [3].

The General Directorate of Financial Control is a state institution. It depends on the Ministry of Finance and Budget. Therefore, the executive branch, including the army, exerts influence on it [1] [2]. The sources approached indicate that such influence is regular [3].

Generally, no reports on the acts of disposition of the assets are communicated. The reports of the General Directorate of Financial Control and the sources of information available do not indicate the existence of a report on the subject [1] [2] [3].

There is no evidence of the existence of a specific organisation that is supposed to scrutinise asset disposals.[1][2][3]

There is no evidence of the existence of a specific organisation that is supposed to scrutinise asset disposals.[1][2][3]

There is no evidence of the existence of a specific organisation that is supposed to scrutinise asset disposals.[1][2][3]

According to the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the Republic, the Parliamentary Committee for Defence, Order, and Public Security is responsible for scrutinising, auditing, and inspecting asset sales within the defence sector [1]. However, this oversight is superficial due to technical limitations, a lack of human resources, financial constraints, and weak expertise in these matters [2]. While the Committee is formally tasked with auditing these transactions, in practice, its ability to do so remains questionable, especially given that such sales often fall under secrecy laws, further limiting parliamentary oversight.

There is no effective external and independent scrutiny of the defence sector [1]. While the Parliamentary Committee for Defence, Security, and Public Order is tasked with oversight, its ability to conduct thorough scrutiny is often undermined by executive influence [2]. The executive or military can unduly influence the Committee’s external scrutiny, particularly when national security concerns, military urgency, or state secrecy are cited as justifications for limiting oversight [3].

The audit reports on asset disposals are not made available to the public, because of the State Secrets Law that sanctions the classification of all information about Defence and Security [1]. The State Secrets Law inhibits any type of transparency initiatives, as it guides the classification of information from the Defence and Security sector [2]. This law is not available online, but there is a description: Law No. 2/79, of December 12, State Secrecy Law are: Boletim da República, Série I, n.º 109, 12/12/1979. Maputo: National Press. In the National Library, next to the complex where the Bulletins of the Republic are printed, and in the Historical Archive of Mozambique, they exist in physical format.

There is no evidence of independent and transparent scrutiny conducted by an external audit body over asset disposals in Niger [1] [2]. Given the current military rule, the likelihood of an independent oversight mechanism operating effectively is highly improbable, as military authorities exercise centralized control over defense and security matters.

There is no evidence that asset disposals in Niger are subject to scrutiny by an independent oversight body external to the defense institutions. Given the current military rule, the existence of an external and autonomous scrutiny body is highly improbable, as defense and security matters remain under centralized military control [1] [2]. Since no independent oversight mechanism is in place, this sub-indicator is marked as Not Applicable (NA).

There is no indication that asset disposals in Niger are subject to scrutiny by an independent oversight body [1] [2]. Given the lack of an independent body to review asset disposals, no public reports or records of such scrutiny exist. As a result, this sub-indicator is marked as Not Applicable (NA).

There was a presidential committee known as the Committee on Audit of Defence Equipment Procurement (CADEP), established to audit defence procurement between 2007 and 2015. But the process remained superficial and irregular and the findings of the Committee, which largely indicted former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dansuki (retired) in the infamous Dansukigate, have not yielded the desired result. Within the MOD, however, the Recurrent Procurement Division of the Department of Finance and Accounts is tasked with the responsibility of the disposal of unserviceable assets including plants, platforms, office furniture and equipment and other physical assets. There is no available record indicating that the performance of this task is scrutinised by an audit body. If at all such exists, it will be irregular and conducted only when the OAuG of the federation does the auditing of MDAs.

Military operations and assets are classified and there are insufficiently strong external control systems, there is little independent and transparent inspection of Nigeria’s defence asset disposals. As there is no available record indicating that the performance of this task is scrutinised by an audit body, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

As there is no available record indicating that the performance of this task is scrutinised by an audit body, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable [1] [2].

The audit body responsible for the scrutiny of asset disposals is the Court of Auditors or Cour des Comptes in French, which is the Supreme Audit Institution, that us the reason why the scrutiny is thorough and formalised. [1][2][3] The Court also includes a Public Prosecutor’s Office, headed by an Attorney General, assisted by a First Advocate General and Advocates General as good governance and transparency in the management of public affairs require effective control by an independent institution . Moreover, the ARMP is also responsible for carrying out technical and/or financial audits in order to control and monitor the implementation of regulations concerning the award, execution and control of contracts and agreements; in this context, ARMP commissions, at the end of each financial year, an independent audit on a random sample of contracts and agreements, transmits to the competent authoritie, and draws up periodic reports on the performance of contracts and agreements on the basis of the investigations and audits carried out, which it publishes and forwards to the aforementioned authorities. [3][4] In Senegal, the control of asset disposals, whether tangible, intangible or financial assets, is ensured by various mechanisms. These mechanisms include internal control, in particular by the Financial Control and Financial Operations Control (COF), as well as bodies such as the General Inspectorate of Finance (IGE). In addition, specific aspects are regulated by the General Tax Code (CGI) and the Investment Code. [2]

The audit bodies for asset disposals are independent and not influenced by the executive [1] . The audits carried out by the Cour des Comptes are independent of political power [2] . Moreover, the ARMP is an independent administrative authority with financial and management autonom, and it can conduct independent audit [3] .

Under the previous regime, several audit reports were delayed before publication by decision of the President of the Republic but with the new authorities, all reports are published. [1] Since the publication of its last general activity report in 2017, the Court of Auditors has still not made its public reports official, particularly for 2018, 2019 and 2020. In February 2020, after submitting them to the President of the Republic, the Cour des Comptes published three reports on the management of certain public bodies from 2015 to 2017. [2] All audit reports are not only published on the Autorité de Régulation des Marchés Publics website, but also forwarded to the Cour des Comptes and the Assemblée Nationale, among other institutions. [3] Specific reports on asset disposals are not directly available. However, information that may indirectly refer to aspects related to asset disposals can be found in the overall reports [4]

The Auditor-General of South Africa provides a full external audit on Armscor including a review of revenue management and compliance with relevant legislation which would include compliance with disposal policies. [1]

Under the Public Audit Act, the Auditor-General is subject only to the Constitution and legal framework and the Act prohibits any person or organ of state from interfering with the functioning of the Auditor-General, securing its independence from the executive. [1] There is no evidence of undue influence by the military or the executive over the external audit function. The World Bank’s Supreme Audit Institution Independence Index ranks South Africa’s Auditor General in the highest category of independence among similar institutions globally. [2]

External audit reports by the Auditor-General are included in Armscor’s annual report, but only summary information is made available on asset disposals. [1] Audit reports are generally prepared within three months following the end of the financial year and published along with the annual report within six months of the end of the financial year.

Chapter II of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2018, outlines the powers of the PPDAA, which largely touches on scrutinising asset disposal by government agencies including those by defence establishments [1]. However, the PPDAA has not been fully functional, lacked key officers in its senior management positions thus making it difficult to scrutinise disposal activities. In a 2024 report, the IMF also noted that while “in-year fiscal reports are prepared, they are often done with significant delay and not in full compliance with legally mandated in-year reporting requirements. Annual financial statements have not been prepared since 2011″[2]. This revelation shows how difficult it is to scrutinise any financial reports in South Sudan including those from disposals conducted by the defence establishments.

Even though the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2018, [1] stipulates the process of procurement and disposal, there is no evidence of scrutiny by an oversight body indicating when, where, how or which assets were disposed from the defence establishment [2]. Therefore, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Information on assets disposed by the defence and security sector in South Sudan are not available to the public [1]. Information on asset disposal also did not feature in the committee of the National Legislative Assembly for the year reviewed, neither did such information appear in the Auditor Planned audit for 2024 [2].

The involvement of the Office of the Auditor General and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) authority signify a formal commitment to oversight. The Auditor General’s mandate to select items for auditing, coupled with the annual conduct of these audits, indicates a structured and recurring process.[1] However, the limitation of classified audits to only three members of Parliament, and the absence of public debates, significantly restricts the scope of external scrutiny [2].
The internal mechanisms of the UPDF, including a dedicated disposal unit and internal audits, demonstrate an effort to manage asset disposals responsibly. These internal checks, focused on assessing wear and tear and determining the need for new equipment, contribute to efficient asset management. However, the decision to withhold these internal scrutiny findings from the public, citing security concerns, raises questions about accountability. While security considerations may justify some level of confidentiality, the lack of public access to information hinders independent evaluation of the disposal process.
Therefore, while the scrutiny of UPDF asset disposals involves formal audits and internal checks, the limitations imposed by classified information and the absence of public disclosure prevent a truly comprehensive and transparent oversight. The balance between security and accountability remains a challenge, and the current system, while not entirely superficial, leaves room for improvement in ensuring public trust and responsible asset management [2].

The independent verification of security sector assets by the Auditor General, acting on behalf of Parliament, provides a crucial check on potential abuses. However, the degree to which this oversight can fully mitigate undue influence is debatable. The inherent secrecy of the security sector, including classified expenditures and operations, may limit the access and scope of the scrutiny by the Auditor General. Furthermore, the potential for political or military interference in the Auditor General’s work, even if subtle, cannot be entirely dismissed [2].
Therefore, while formal mechanisms for independence and oversight exist, the potential for undue influence remains a concern. The existence of formal independence, therefore, does not always equate to practical independence in the security sector [1].

The MoDVA is required to submit its financial reports for parliamentary scrutiny and approval in accordance with legal requirements. As per Section 13(3) of the Public Financial Management (PFM) Act 2015, the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development must submit the National Budget Estimates to Parliament by April 1, following consultations with relevant stakeholders, for discussion and approval by May 31, before the beginning of the financial year [2]. The Office of the Auditor General and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) are responsible for scrutinising the accounts of the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs (MoDVA).
Following this review, the report is submitted to the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs for further scrutiny. While reports are generally made available to the public, classified reports remain restricted [1]. However, there is evidence of significant delays and inconsistencies in reporting, with certain years lacking published reports. Additionally, while disposal information may be available on the audit body’s website, its publication is not widely publicized or done in a timely manner.

While it is expected as required by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [Chapter 22:23] [1] for the defence sector to provide the audited accounts to the auditor general as indicated in the Public Finance Management Act, [Chapter 22:19 [2], who then is supposed to present it to parliament through the Public Accounts Committee and the Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Security, this does not happen because the defence sector does not submit detailed information on how the disposal revenues were utilised and its management thereof [3]. The Auditor General reports do not have information on the financial results on the disposed defence asset [4].

The Defence Procurement Act [Chapter 11:03] gives the mandate to the Minister of defence who in turn has also been mandated to form the Defence Board which oversee the financial inflow and outflow on all disposals and sale of such disposals as well as accounting of such within the defence forces. In this regard, there is limited to no scrutiny because the defence forces are mandated to do their own accounting and oversee such accounting as required by the Defence Procurement Act [1]. The auditing within the defence forces suffers from lack of scrutiny because the defence forces does not fulfil the requirements of the Public Procurement Act and Disposal of Public Assets Act [2]. Hence all the accounting by the defence forces is not submitted to the Auditor General as required by the Act [1] [2].

The Defence Procurement Act [Chapter 11:03] allows the Minister of Defence to work with his/her own Defence board within the defence forces to manage the disposal of assets and manage the inflow funds of the proceeds. It is very challenging to ensure transparency and share the information with the public because the Act does not oblige the defence sector to share such information publicly [1]. This is one of the reasons why the Auditor General report does not contain the information on auditing of the defence sector. Such information on the auditing of the defence forces is not in the Auditor General report in the year 2024 [2].