The National Assembly settles the nation’s accounts. To this end, the National Assembly is assisted by the Court of Audit, which it of all investigations and studies relating to the implementation of public revenue and expenditure [1]. The government is also required to provide the National Assembly with any explanations it may be asked to provide on its management and activities [2], including audit reports related to the security sector and other secret programmes [3]. Details of military expenditure, when secret, are not made available to parliament. Audit reports on classified expenditure are not shared or examined by the Defense Committee [4].

Legislators are not provided audit reports on secret items and there is no evidence that parliament has required documentation or testimony from the military and/or intelligence services regarding the findings of the audit report during the period under review. Thus this indicator is marked Not Applicable [1][2][3].

Some internal audits of security sector accounts and secret programs, including those of the Ministry of Defence’s Inspectorate General, are carried ou. [2] These series of audits may be carried out by the Ministry’s Inspectorate General or by specific commissions set up for this purpose. [2] Audit reports are submitted to the Minister of Defence, who decides what action to take and the Minister keeps them for himself and other members of the military hierarchy, such as the head of the national Defence force. [2] However, these audit reports are never provided to legislators, let alone debated. [1]

Legislators are not provided audit reports on secret items, or secret programmes so this indicator is marked Not Applicable.[1] [2]

Cameroon’s legislative body has limited access to audit reports and financial accounts of the security sector, including military and intelligence spending. The restricted access to detailed financial data and the lack of transparency surrounding classified defence expenditures suggest that Parliament’s oversight is severely constrained. Audit reports on security sector finances are either not disclosed to Parliament or access is highly restricted. There is little to no routine debate or in-depth review of military or intelligence expenditure within parliamentary committees, which further hampers the legislative body’s ability to scrutinize these expenditures effectively. Moreover, the absence of a mandate to scrutinise classified spending raises concerns about potential mismanagement and corruption.[1][2].

In Cameroon, audit reports related to the annual accounts of the security sector are not systematically shared with legislators for public debate. Although the law requires that public accounts be audited, there is no consistent or transparent process for providing the findings on military and intelligence expenditures to Parliament.[1] Discussions on defence budgets and related accounts are mostly held behind closed doors, and Parliament does not regularly scrutinise these reports.[2] This lack of routine, public parliamentary scrutiny of military and intelligence spending reflects a culture of secrecy, which hinders effective oversight and accountability.[3] Consequently, this situation warrants a score of 1.

The legislative branch does not receive audit reports on secret posts or secret programmes. The legislative branch does not use its powers to control the government, especially in matters of national security and defence. Issues relating to the intelligence services, particularly those concerning agencies linked to the presidency, make them immune from any control. Other oversight and audit institutions are under the authority of the executive branch, in this case the Minister of Defence [1, 2, 3].

The Parliament does not receive audit reports of classified programmes so this indicator is marked Not Applicable. Exchanges between the army and parliamentarians take place during certain seminars. Parliamentarians do not receive audit reports on secret elements and programmes [1, 2, 3].

Audit reports of the annual accounts of the Ghana Armed Forces are usually conducted and reported by the Audit Service of Ghana as part of its annual Ministries, Departments and agencies. (1) Legislators, specifically the Parliamentary Select Committee on Defence and Interior, typically receive the audited report along with the highly classified exclusion details. (2) (3)

Audit reports on secret items are not made available to legislators (1)(2).

Legislators are provided with detailed audit reports related to the security sector and other secret programmes. Audit reports examine all expenditures (major and minor). They scrutinise all expenditures and report back to the house including where there is difficulty [1]. However, there is evidence to suggest that classified detail is withheld from the house.
In March the CS Defence declined to reveal to Parliament how KES 135 billion was spent. The Defence committee had raised queries concerning the 2022/23 Annual Performance Report submitted by his Ministry. In defence the CS noted that ‘Revealing such details in public, was a risk to the national security. He added that he could only share such information to the National Security Council under the tutelage of the Commander-In-Chief [2].

Article 229 (7) and (8) of the Constitution mandates the Auditor General (7) Audit reports to be submitted to Parliament. Within three months after receiving an audit report Parliament is epxted to debate and consider the report and take appropriate action. Departmental Committees and Oversight Committees like Parliamentary Accounts can summon the Accounting Officer of the Ministry who is also the Principal Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary to provide further detail where relevant [1]. Article 229 (6) and (7) requires that Auditor- General to confirm in a report to Parliament that all public expenditures are lawful and effective.
In practice, however, audit findings are often tabled without substantive debate or follow-up in Parliament [3]. A news clip from February 2025 quoted the Auditor-General urging Parliament to act, stating that failure to engage with audit findings renders them ineffective [4].
The OAG Special Audit on Foodstuff procurement 2014-15, 2017-2018 was as a result of parliamentary scrutiny, where the Parliamentary Account Committee ordered for a special audit. The report recommended MOD Management review its procurement procedures to ensure they comply with the public procurement laws and regulations. They called for engagement of procurement professionals in all procurement decisions as stipulated in the PPADA [2].

The audit report conducted by the GAC is comprehensive. All expenses, covert or overt, are audited. The GAC often demands the defence sector to produce the source document for covert expenditure. Where expenses are made on secret items labelled as covert without the required source documents, such transactions are questioned and viewed as suspicious. The audit is often contained in a detailed report containing analysis, findings and recommendations. The audit report is shared with the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.[1][2]

Auditors have expressed their frustration over the persistent lack of political will to conduct regular hearings on audit reports, to discuss and debate findings contained therein.[1][2] Since the end of the war, more than four hundred audit reports have been produced. While these reports are clear on the breach of Liberia public financial laws, both the executive and legislature have done very little to address the problem. A a recent study monitoring trust levels across the key organs of the government revealed that Liberians mistrust executive, judiciary and legislature by more than 50%.[3]

The legislator does not receive audit reports concerning secret posts. No debate on the question is organized between those responsible for National Defense and Parliamentarians [1] [2].

Legislators are not consulted regarding secret programs. Defense is still considered a subject reserved for the executive and the military alone [1] [2].

There is no official or unofficial information on the existence of an audit or audit report concerning annual accounts and secret posts or secret programmes. Consequently, the legislator does not receive any audit reports related to secret posts or secret programmes.[1] However, no second source has been found to corroborate the information.

The members of the CNT, particularly the Defence Committee, do not receive audit reports on secret elements or secret programmes.[1] Furthermore, the reports from the audit and control structures do not mention any control of secret elements or secret programmes.

Legislators are not provided audit reports on the security sector and secret items.The law on state and military secrets is clear and peremptory, and prohibits access to these reports because they contain administrative and operational information. The legislators can request general information from the Defence and Security Sector, through the Defence, Security and Public Order Committee [1], but not on secret items, because this is classified information. For instance, In the “Dívidas Ocultas” Case [2], Defence and Security Forces officers refused to provide secret information during the forensic audits that took place, claiming that they cannot provide strategic and operational information, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of Decree No. 19/2013, of 3 May [3].
The “Dívidas Ocultas” [hidden debts] is name given to loans amounting to more than 2 billion dollars, contracted in the name of the Mozambican State, between 2013 and 2014, to finance the coastal protection project, involving the shipbuilding company Privinvest and the Mozambican companies PROINDICUS, EMATUM and MAM, culminating in the biggest corruption scandal in the Mozambique Defence and Security Forces.

The audit reports of the annual accounts of the security sector (military and intelligence services) are not subject to parliamentary debate, because they are protected by the State Secrets Act (1, 2, 3 and 4).

There has been no parliamentary audit of the annual accounts of the intelligence services in the past three years [1]. Before the military coup of July 26, 2023, the National Assembly’s Security and Defense Committee had the formal mandate to oversee defense and security spending [2]. However, even then, there was no evidence that audits of the security sector’s annual accounts were systematically conducted or debated in parliament. Following the dissolution of the National Assembly, all parliamentary oversight over military and intelligence expenditures has been eliminated, further reinforcing the lack of transparency in defense spending.

There is no evidence that audits on secret items are conducted so this sub-indicator should be marked Not Applicable. There has been no parliamentary audit of the annual accounts of the intelligence services in the past three years [1]. Before the military coup of July 26, 2023, the National Assembly’s Security and Defense Committee had the formal mandate to oversee defense and security spending [2]. However, even then, there was no evidence that audits of the security sector’s annual accounts were systematically conducted or debated in parliament. Following the dissolution of the National Assembly, all parliamentary oversight over military and intelligence expenditures has been eliminated, further reinforcing the lack of transparency in defense spending.

Auditing of public accounts play a critical role in upholding transparency, accountability and integrity within the government systems. Nigeria has an appalling public sector auditing culture [1]. The most recent Auditor General’s report is for the 2020 fiscal year which was submitted to the National Assembly in February 2024 [2]. As a result, legislators are not provided audit reports on the security sector in a timely and regular manner. Even when such reports are made available, it is doubtful if secret items are included. This has been blamed on the secrecy surrounding the security sector, of which the NASS that oversight responsibility is more prepared to promote that scrutinise [3,4]. Weak auditing systems at the national security adviser’s office, the defence ministry and armed services headquarters often mean funds are diverted to private or non-military purposes [5].

There is a non-existence of legislative debate on audit report relating to the defence spending because they are rarely presented for debate by the appropriate authorities. This has contributed to fuelling corruption in the security sector with little result shown for the huge amount invested [1,2]. And to put an end to this, the 10th HoR is considering establishment of an independent body to be auditing defence spending. Part of the stated intentions of the HoR to strengthen oversight over security sector is to ensure that Committees responsible for defence, internal security, and intelligence have powers to scrutinize and review the full details of budgetary allocations and expenditures and legislate for the establishment of a Security Sector Reform Commission to oversee reforms [3].

Nor the Parliament or the Defence and Security Committee receive audit reports on the defence and security sector. [1] Security issues are bruogh forward to explain why legislators do not receive audit reports on the security sector. [2]

Parliament plays no role in reviewing defence audit reports due to classification and access limitations so this indicator is marked Not Applicable. The legislators are not provided audit reports on secret items because they are not aware of those what those items are. They do not either have enought information about the expensises of the army [1] [2] .

The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans provides extensive scrutiny of the Department of Defence’s audit outcomes [1] while the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence provides scrutiny of audit reports for sensitive spending. The Auditor-General has, however, consistently cited challenges with full access to sensitive documentation, leaving secret items unaudited, which is a considerable omission [2].

Parliamentary oversight mechanisms require departments to account for audit findings. The JSCI receives annual reports and has explicitly raised concerns about the Auditor-General’s restricted access to documentation. While parliamentary scrutiny is active, it is often limited by national security confidentiality, restricting the JSCI’s access to documentation and limiting its ability to enforce accountability. There is no evidence that military/intelligence services are regularly compelled to provide testimony or documentation in response to audit findings. [1][2]

Oversight of the defence sector in South Sudan remains inadequate audit reports for the defence and security sector are not regularly presented in parliament. For instance, an examination of the activities carried out by the specialised Committee on Defence and Veteran Affairs within South Sudan’s National Legislative Assembly reveals no substantial evidence that audit reports have been thoroughly discussed or scrutinised. [1] One respondent noted that this issue is exacerbated by the legislature’s lack of capacity to properly review and analyse audit reports, further weakening accountability and transparency in the sector. [2]
Parliament does not receive full, detailed internal audit reports on defence expenditures. While the National Audit Chamber audits all ministries, including Defence, the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee only reviews high‑level summaries, and security‑related details are withheld and never published — the audit reports for security institutions “have never been approved for publication by Parliament” [3]. Additionally, committees focus on aggregate budget performance (e.g., overspending trends), rather than analysing the Ministry’s internal audit findings in depth.

Members of the legislative assembly are not provided with a copy of the audit done on the defence and security sector [1]. Therefore, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

The Auditor General’s reports to Parliament are comprehensive and serve as key documents for future parliamentary debates. Another important report is the Procurement and Disposal Audit Report for the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs. Additionally, the Ministerial Policy Statements and Budget Estimates provide detailed insights into defence expenditures.
The Report of the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs for the FY 2024/25 highlights certain issues but does not include secret items. Parliament debates the annual accounts of the security sector as required by the Administration of Parliament Act (APA) [1,2,3].

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Ugandan Parliament plays a critical role in ensuring accountability within the security sector. The PAC of the Ugandan Parliament is tasked with examining audit findings from the Auditor General. In its pursuit of this mandate, the PAC relies heavily on the audit reports provided by the Auditor General, which serve as the foundation for its inquiries.
However, its engagement with the military and intelligence services is limited. While the PAC reviews audit reports, it does not consistently request documentation or testimony directly from these entities.
For instance, in the 2023 Consolidated Audit Report by the Office of the Auditor General [1], issues relating to unaccounted funds in ministries—including the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs—were highlighted, but the PAC’s review did not include direct testimonies from senior UPDF officers or intelligence officials regarding these discrepancies. Similarly, Tumukwasibwe (2022) notes that while the PAC is constitutionally empowered to engage with all public bodies, in practice it avoids deeply probing the security sector, often citing “national security” concerns as a barrier to calling military leadership to testify [2].
Parliament or the appropriate committee discusses the audit findings but does not request documentation or testimony from the military and/or intelligence services, and it does not systematically comment on the quality or completeness of the audit process for these bodies.

Section 309 (2b) (d) (3) states that the Auditor General at the request of the Government, to carry out special audits of the accounts of any statutory body or government-controlled entity.
d. to exercise any other functions that may be conferred or imposed on him or her by or under an Act of Parliament.
3. Public officers must comply with orders given to them by the Auditor-General.

Thus, parliament is supposed to be furnished with audited reports from the defence sector as per the constitution of Zimbabwe [1]. However, parliament do not easily get the detailed audit reports from the defence sector especially because the reports are said to be characterised with secrets operations which are considered a national security issue [2]. If in any case the defence sector audit reports are submitted to parliament then they are either misrepresenting the truth or confusing reports which are intentionally made for the purpose making sure that the legislature does not understand the reports [2].

Defence secret operations are not audited by parliament as they are deemed to be security sensitive [1]. Therefore, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.