In case of any form of corruption in thedefence sector, there are some measures such as: retrogradation or dismissal of the military personnel after disciplinary procedure and prosecution after investigation [1]. In most cases, the suspect of corruption can be sent as part of the prosecution process to the repression court of economic offenses and terrorism (CRIET). The Criminal Code clearly defines corrupion and bribey as criminal offences and it applies to the defence sector. [2] The definition of article 335 covers (at a minimum) offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.[2]

Instances of bribery or corruption are usually investigated or disciplined through formal processes [1]. For example, several security officers were convicted in several trials in 2023 of taking bribes from cybercriminals to avoid arresting them [2] [3]. There are no allegations of undue political influence expressed by the convicted persons [1] [3].

There is no law defining bribery and corruption that applies specifically to the defence sector. There is a general law (Law No. 1/12 of 18 April 2006 on the measures for the prevention and repression of corruption and related offence) that applies to all Burundian state services, including the defence sector, which defines and punishes corruption [1] [2] [3]. This law defines corruption and related offences and also provides for penalties for individuals guilty of these acts. No specific mention of the defence sector is made in the law. [2] [3].

The Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Defence and the Anti-Corruption Brigade can investigate certain cases of corruption and manage to shed light on them. However, sanctions are not forthcoming. The perpetrators of these cases are often under the protection of higher authorities in the defence sector. There is therefore clear interference by the authorities in the decision-making process as to what action should be taken in the various cases of bribery and corruption. [1] [2]

Cameroon has legislation criminalizing corruption and bribery, including in the defense sector. The Penal Code (Law No. 67-LF-1 of 12 June 1967) contains provisions under articles 134, 137, 142, and 160, which address various corruption-related offenses such as embezzlement, illicit enrichment, and bribery. Penalties include imprisonment, fines, or both. Bribery is defined as any public servants that solicits, accepts or receives offers, promises or gifts in order to obtain any advantage whatsoever granted by public authority .Article 160 provides sanctions ranging from imprisonment for between two and ten years and a fine of between 20,000 and 1 million francs [1.] The Military Justice Code provides a general legal framework for prosecuting crimes within the armed forces, including corruption [6]. However, it does not clearly categorize or define the various forms of corruption (e.g., active vs. passive bribery, misappropriation of funds, undue influence), thereby limiting the specificity of sanctions applicable to different types of offenses in the defense context [1]. Cameroon has also established the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC), which contributes to identifying and reporting corruption cases across sectors, including the military [3].
Despite the existence of legal provisions, enforcement is inconsistent. Interviews indicate that sanctions are more commonly applied to junior officers, while senior personnel often face no prosecution or only administrative sanctions [2][3][5]. Penalties applied in practice are frequently less than one year of imprisonment or substituted with disciplinary measures, which undermines the deterrent effect of the law. Furthermore, there is limited transparency in military judicial processes.

Cameroon faces significant challenges in sanctioning acts of corruption, particularly within government institutions and the defense sector. Although mechanisms like the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC) and anti-corruption laws exist, their enforcement is weak. Sanctions are often symbolic, such as temporary bans or minor administrative measures, without lasting impact. Corruption risks, especially in military procurement, are widely recognized, but individuals involved rarely face meaningful consequences [1] [4]. The implementation of anti-corruption laws is further hindered by political protection networks within the ruling elite, which shield those accused of corrupt practices. For instance, security personnel accused of misappropriating funds for military equipment or engaging in clientelist recruitment often benefit from political protection [1] [2]. This culture of impunity prevents effective action and perpetuates corruption in the defense sector. Furthermore, anti-corruption efforts are seen as symbolic rather than substantive, eroding public trust. Despite legal frameworks, the lack of effective sanctions allows corruption to continue, especially in critical areas like defense, posing governance and security risks. The inability to enforce robust sanctions reflects a broader failure to create meaningful reform, leaving the defense sector vulnerable to corruption and undermining institutional integrity [3].

Corruption among personnel is punishable under the Criminal Code and Ordinance No. 2013-660 of 20 September 2013 on the prevention and fight against corruption and other offences. The Penal Code punishes the offering, giving, accepting or soliciting of bribes and provides for prison sentences of 2 to 10 years and fines of 200,000 to 2,000,000 CFA francs [1]. The ordinance also punishes active and passive corruption and provides for penalties including imprisonment of 5 to 10 years and fines of 200,000 to 2,000,000 CFA francs [2]. Other corruption-related offences are defined in the ordinance.

Over the past five years, several cases of corruption have been investigated and disciplinary sanctions imposed. For example, two gendarmes were prosecuted for corruption by the military court in 2021 and sentenced to 12 months in prison [1]. In addition, in September 2021, Côte d’Ivoire conducted a national “anti-racketeering” operation targeting corruption within the police and gendarmerie, which led to several members of these forces being brought before the military court [2]. As part of this campaign, five gendarmes were sentenced to 24 months in prison in April 2022 [3]. There is no evidence of political influence in these cases, but in general, the country’s judicial system is considered to be non-independent and judges are highly susceptible to external interference and bribery [4].

The Armed Forces Act 1962, Act 105, is a major regulatory measure in Ghana that keeps personnel in check. The act explicitly states personnel’s roles and responsibilities (3). The Code of Service Discipline stated in Section 12 of the Act governs the activities of each personnel; however, Section 18 clearly outlines the abhorrence of the act to personnel engaging in corrupt activities. Section 95 of the Armed Forces Act 1962 (C.I. 12), states that “Nothing in the Code of Service Discipline affects the jurisdiction of any civil court to try a person for any offence triable by that Court,”.
Moreover, personnel are not immune to the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 1034). Sections 240–241 explicitly criminalise a public officer offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting “any valuable consideration” to influence their actions in relation to their official duties. Section 252 further criminalises giving or receiving bribes to influence a public officer (4).
The Court Martial, which is the personnel jurisdictional court, has the authority to enforce disciplinary regulations in accordance with the Armed Forces Regulations and C.I. 12 conferred by Article 152 of the Constitution (1) (2). Ghana’s Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act 1960 boosts the maximum penalty to up to 25 years’ imprisonment for public officers convicted of bribery-related offences (6).

There have been instances of alleged misconduct by personnel in the armed forces, leading to court proceedings. In accordance with Section of the Armed Forces Regulation, all officers are subject to the civil law once an offence involves parties of civil character. Therefore, the civil police have the right to arrest any officer who is found liable for such an offence involving a civil actor by the state (3). However, a Disciplinary Board takes charge of cases by officers for any offence under the Code of Service Discipline, which includes offences relating to bribes and corruption-related matters as stated in Section 55 of the Act (3). While civil cases handled by the state are made public through the media, the same is not applied to cases involving military offences, which are restricted within the military.
The media reported on July 5, 2024, about an alleged recruitment scam involving some personnel of the Ghanaian armed forces. Two military personnel, accused of collecting a sum of money from some civilians and promising them recruitment into the Ghana Armed Forces and immigration services, are under investigation. Following their failure to fulfil their promises, the complaint filed a court case in which one of the officers appeared before the court while the other was at large. The story alleges that the police service’s efforts to persuade the armed forces to produce the other alleged culprit have proven futile. (1)
Additionally, a press release by the GAF Public Relations office suggests that a soldier of the force who was under investigation for multiple fraud cases had committed suicide in October 2023. (2)
At the national level, the Office of the Special Prosecutor investigated the high-profile Airbus bribery case, which involved allegations of improper payments to Ghanaian officials in connection with the procurement of military aircraft. While the investigation demonstrated the formal mechanisms available to address such cases, critics, including opposition politicians and civil society, alleged that political considerations may have influenced the process (4) (5). These claims have not been confirmed by a court, but they highlight the perception that political influence can sometimes be attempted in sensitive defence-related bribery cases.

Kenya’s Bribery Act (No. 47 of 2016) covers offences such as offering or receiving bribes, bribery of public officials (domestic and foreign), and private entities’ failure to prevent bribery by associates, including agents or employees [1]. The principal offenses under the Bribery Act include:
– Giving a bribe (Bribery Act, Section 5)
– Receiving a bribe (Bribery Act, Section 5)
– Bribery of foreign public officials (Bribery Act, Section 8)
– Failure of a private entity to put in place procedures for the prevention of bribery (Bribery Act, Section 9)
– Failure of a private entity to prevent bribery by a person associated with it (Bribery Act, Section 10)
– Assisting a person or a private entity to give a bribe (Section 13, Bribery Act)
Reference to an associated person in the Act means a person who performs services on behalf of another person as an agent, employee, or in any other capacity (Section 11, Bribery Act) [2].

The investigation and disciplinary processes for bribery and corruption within the Kenya military are complex and face several challenges. While formal procedures are in place, their ability to operate freely from political influence remains a topic of debate. The KDF has implemented anti-corruption measures, including internal investigative units and collaboration with external oversight bodies like EACC [1]. However, the extent to which these mechanisms function independently of political pressure is not always clear.
However, while the KDF has made efforts to address corruption through institutional reforms, the deeply entrenched nature of corruption in broader Kenyan society poses significant challenges to fully eradicating it within the military structure [2]. The effectiveness of these measures is further complicated by the sensitive nature of military operations and the potential for national security concerns to be used as a justification for limiting external scrutiny [3].
For instance, the court martial has been consistent in enforcing the law against those found to be corrupt [3]. Major Ibrahim Juma Wasike received a 5-year, 8-month prison sentence in January 2023 at the court martial in Langata Barracks for fraud. He was found guilty of two counts of obtaining money by false pretense, violating KDF Act and penal code.

Bribery is defined in two ways as follows:
1) In the Act establishing the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission, it is defined as unlawful rewarding of public servants, unlawful compensation for assistance in government matters, trading in public office and political endorsement.[1]
2) It is defined in the Code of Conduct for members of the Executive Branch of Government as any reward, inducement or anything promised, offered, given, accepted or received by a favor (s) given or to be given by the public servant in the performance of her/his official duties and includes what is known widely in Liberian parlance as ‘cold water’. The term cold water also implies offering, giving and receiving.[2]
These two definitions are consistent with the Liberia penal law which prescribes criminal prosecution as the appropriate sanction required for violation. According to the law, guilty party is expected to be dismissed. Based on the egregiousness of the offence, other penalty of jail time is warranted. Although the National Defense Act of 2008 discusses the code of conduct for its personnel, it does not specifically discuss or define bribery and its proportional sanction. In the absence of it, the LACC and Code of Conduct become the standard to apply. In the case of such violation, personnel will be expected to be reprimanded.[3][4]

Enforcement of disciplinary measures for bribery and corruption within the Liberian defence sector has often been perceived as selective. While there are formal policies in place under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and internal military procedures to address corruption, these measures are more frequently and effectively applied to lower-ranking personnel and members of the rank and file. By contrast, enforcement against senior officers is far less consistent, contributing to a perception of impunity among higher-ranking officials.[1][2]
However, there have been rare but notable exceptions, such as the case of former Defence Minister Brownie Samukai, who in 2022 was sentenced to two years in prison for the misappropriation of US$1.1 million from the Armed Forces of Liberia pension account. Although he repaid part of the money, the Liberian Supreme Court upheld his conviction, and he was ordered to serve a custodial sentence when full restitution was not made.[3] This case stands out as an enforcement reaching senior levels, though it remains an exception rather than the norm.

Criminal sanctions are provided for acts of corruption (bribery, cronyism, favoritism etc.). The Criminal Code punishes both active and passive bribery of public officials in its article 177.1 and 177.2. Sanctions range from a prison sentence of 2 to 10 years and fines of 1 000 000 to 200 000 000 Ariary. [1] Moreover, the Army Code of Conduct clearly states that it is forbidden to solicit or accept gifts or favours as these are considered acts of corruption [2]. Effective measures for corrupt personnel are laid down in the Defence Statutes, and these are applied especially in cases of flagrante delicto. These statutes are known as the “Catalogues of Punishments” for the Armed Forces Sanctions are also provided for in law n°98-030 in its article 39, article 46, article 48 which completes and modifies law n°96-029 on the general status of military personnel. [3] [4] [5]

The sources contacted believe that cases really exist (following revelations in the press). However, the soldiers make arrangements among themselves to avoid scandals [1] Since 2020, the press has reported almost no definitive convictions of the military for corruption [2]. Defence institutions give priority to education and awareness-raising in cases of corruption. Sanctions are the last resort [3]. There are few cases because of the corporatism in which the military defends itself. However, the authorities tend to not hesitate to arrest persofficiannels working within the armed forces involved in acts of corruption, particularly those linked to the smuggling of natural resources into the country [4]. This is the case of the illicit export of 73.5 kilos of gold: a first-class gendarme was arrested. He was suspected of having issued a letter authorizsing the export while being guilty of complicity in corruption [5]. In April 2024, eight police officers were detained for corruption [6].

Section 2, article 67 of the Ordinance on the general status of military personnel stipulates that military personnel are subject to ordinary criminal law and to the provisions of the Code of MilitaryJustice.[1] The Criminal Code in its article 120 and 121 sanction the offering, handing over, receiving or requesting anything of value with the aim of influencing the actions of a civil servant or any other person entrusted with a public or legal function. Once the offence has been proven, and subject to being made available by the military hierarchy, military personnel guilty of such actions may be subject to criminal prosecution, imprisonment, dismissal and even payment of considerable financial penalties. According to the Criminal Code, sanctions are five to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine equal to twice the value of the promises accepted or the things received or requested.[2]

Occasionally, although not frequently, cases of breaches of criminal law or the general status of military personnel are investigated. For example, in the context of the implementation of the Military Orientation and Programming Act, irregularities were identified and led to the prosecution of senior officers, particularly the Director of Material and Hydrocarbons for the Armed Forces and the Director of Material and Finance for the Ministry of Defence. This is in addition to the Financial Controller at the time, and their placement under a committal order[1][2][3]. The case is still under investigation.The proceedings are ongoing and no conviction has yet been handed down.

The disciplinary sanctions for military crimes related by corruption are clearly defined in the Military Statute of the Armed Forces of Defence of Mozambique [1]; the Regulation of Rights and Duties of General Officers, Superior and Subalterns of the Armed Forces of Defence of Mozambique and reservists [2], and the Law of Military Crimes and the Law on Combating Corruption [3]. These sactions could include imprisonment, fine, expulsion, and confiscation of assets or compensation [4].

The enforcement of bribery or corruption cases is legally mandated to follow formal investigative and disciplinary processes [1]. These cases are prosecuted in ordinary courts, as Mozambique does not have military courts, despite the Constitution allowing for their establishment in times of war [2]. Investigations and disciplinary actions fall under the General Inspectorate of Defense [3], the Central Office for Combating Corruption (GCCC) [4], and the Central Office for Asset Recovery within the Attorney General’s Office, with trials conducted in the competent courts [2]. However, in practice, political interference undermines the independence of these enforcement mechanisms. The “Dívidas Ocultas” case, which involved officers of the Defence and Security Forces, was tried in the Common Court (Maputo City Judicial Court) under Mozambique’s Legal Organisation Law [1]. Nevertheless, there were significant concerns over political interference in the investigation and trial processes. Notably, General Mutumuke was neither investigated nor prosecuted, despite his alleged involvement. While anti-corruption structures such as the GCCC exist, their effectiveness in handling defence-related cases can be limited due to government influence. Defence sector suspects are rarely prosecuted or sentenced, as seen in the case of Ministry of Defence officials accused of embezzling over 50 million meticais [5].

Both the 2003 Military Penal Code [1] and the Public Penal Code [2] provide legal frameworks for addressing bribery and corruption in the defence sector. The Military Penal Code (Article 228) explicitly criminalizes corruption, theft, and general crimes within the armed forces, prescribing dismissal, demotion, or imprisonment for offenders. Additionally, the judiciary military police, under the Ministry of Defence, is mandated to investigate and prosecute violations at all levels of the military (Articles 46-48).
The Public Penal Code also reinforces anti-corruption measures. Chapter III, Section 7, establishes prison sentences ranging from two to ten years and fines between 50,000 and 1,000,000 francs for corruption and influence peddling (Article 130). It criminalizes soliciting, accepting, or offering bribes, including those related to public contracts, favors, or political influence (Article 132). These provisions apply to military personnel as part of the broader public service framework.
Despite these legal provisions, maximum penalties remain weak—with fines that may not serve as a sufficient deterrent.

There is evidence that instances of bribery and corruption are investigated, but disciplinary measures remain superficial and selective, often influenced by political and institutional interests.
For example, the 2022 military tribunal demonstrated a formal commitment to prosecuting offenses, including fraud and loss of military equipment, which suggests that the military has some mechanisms in place to address corruption within its ranks [1]. However, the handling of major corruption scandals, such as “MDN Gate”, where over 78 billion CFA francs were embezzled through fraudulent defense contracts, raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement measures. Despite public outrage and documented evidence, many implicated officials avoided prosecution, and instead, the case was resolved through restitution agreements rather than criminal sentencing.
Furthermore, although the military coup of July 26, 2023, was partly justified by claims of fighting corruption, some of the same generals now in power were previously high-ranking officials during the 2020 corruption scandal in the Ministry of Defense.[2]. While the current regime has dismissed officials suspected of corruption, there is no guarantee that these actions are impartial rather than politically motivated purges [3].

There are a range of clearly defined offences regarding bribery and corruption in extant law in Nigeria that apply to the defence sector. The Criminal Code and the Armed Forces Act (Cap A20) Laws of the federation of Nigeria 2004 is presently the Military Law regulating the Nigerian Armed Forces. Bribery and corruption offences apply to the military and constitute offences under military law. The definition under the criminal code includes any public official “Section 98” [1]. The criminal code defines official corruption to mean acts where a public official invites bribes, etc., on account of his actions either by corruptly asking for, or receiving, or obtaining any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person. This includes cases where the incumbent agrees to receiving, or attempts to receive – or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of committing or already having committed to any favour or disfavour in the discharge of his official duties. Similarly, Article 108 of the Nigerian Armed Forces Act of 1993 (Cap A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004), stipulates that a person subject to service law under this Act who communicates threats to another person with the intention thereby to obtain a thing of value or gain is guilty of extortion and liable, on conviction by a court-martial, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years [2]. Provisions of these extant legislation can be invoked by authorities to investigate and prosecute personnel alleged to have committed an offence bordering on corruption. In a recent case, the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS), Vice Admiral Emmanuel Ogalla was accused for assisting aiding bunkering and a multimillion-naira contract-splitting fraud. In accordance with their stated policy goal, the Minister of State for Defence, Bello Matawalle disclosed that the accusations will be investigated [3].

Some instance of corruption involving personnel have in the past been investigated and prosecuted, leading to conviction either by a military court- martial or a high court. In April 2024, for instance, two Nigerian soldiers, Corporal Innocent Joseph and Lance Corporal Jacob Gani, were dismissed from the army for vandalizing and stealing armoured cables at Dangote Refinery, Lagos. Following investigation and trial, they were found guilty of abandoning their post and unauthorized possession of materials, violating sections 57(1) and 114(1) of the Armed Forces Act. The soldiers were summarily tried, dismissed from service, and handed over to civil authorities for prosecution as a deterrent to others [1]. As of October 2023, no fewer than 644 personnel of the Nigerian Army have appeared before the court martial to stand trial for various offences in the last four years. The offences bordered on misconduct, murder, and corruption, among others [2]. In another corruption-related case, the former Group Managing Director of the Nigerian Army Properties Limited (NAPL), Major General Umar Mohammed, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment in October 2023 by a special court-martial set up by the Nigerian Army to try him on corruption charges, forgery, and abuse of office amongst several others [3]. In July 2020, for instance, the EFCC secured the conviction of Air Vice Marshal Alkali Mohammadu Mamu. AVM Mamu (rtd), a former Group Managing Director of the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) Holding Company and Air Force Commanding, Training Command was one of the senior military officers accused of abusing their positions by the Presidential Committee on the Audit of Defence Equipment Procurement (CADEP) mandated to look into contracts awarded for military procurement [4].
Also, in October 2024, the Nigerian Army Headquarters opened an investigation into corruption allegations against the immediate past Commander of the 3 Brigade Kano, Brig. Gen. M.A. Sadiq. The General was dismissed following accusations of withholding benefits meant for his subordinates, along with other allegations of misappropriation during his tenure as commander [5]. Nonetheless, there are concerns that the pattern of anti-corruption enforcement within the military is inconsistent and sometimes undermined by undue political influence [6].

The provisions of the Penal Code punish the actions of public officials, including the defence and security forces, who, in the exercise of their duties, may have improperly received gifts, commissions, bribes and other gifts. The Criminal Code distinguishes between active bribery, which is committed by the briber (articles 159 to 163), and passive bribery, or concussion, which is committed by the bribe-taker (articles 156 to 158). [1] The Senegalese penal code clearly defines corruption-related offences for both the defence forces and civilians. The penalties for each type of corruption are also clearly defined. [2] In the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 3 of article “159” and paragraph 2 of article “160” of the penal code, the guilty party, if an officer, will also be punished by dismissal. If the guilty party is a member of the military or a person treated as such, the provisions of the Code of Military Justice will be applied to the fine. [3]

There are many cases that are investigated and the people sanctioned according to the law. However these minor cases are usually considered as not important,and therefore are not published These remain internal cases managed by the directorate of Ministry of Justice. [1] More recently, the Senegalese government, led by Ousmane Sonko, has launched an in-depth investigation into a contract worth 120 million euros, or more than 78 billion CFA francs, signed under President Macky Sall. The contract, to modernise and equip the national gendarmerie, has raised many questions within the new administration, mainly because of an alleged lack of transparency. [2] Last June, three Senegalese soldiers appeared before the Military Court. Accused of having “divulged sensitive and strategic information to the combatant leaders of the Mouvement des forces démocratiques de Casamance” (MFDC), the two non-commissioned officers and the soldier were charged by the Doyen des juges d’instruction with “complicity in undermining State security, undermining national defense, endangering the lives of others and plotting against the authority of the State”. [3]

South Africa has a robust legal framework for criminalising and sanctioning corruption, including among defence personnel. The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PCCAA), No. 12 of 2004, defines a wide range of corruption-related offences applicable to all public officials, including defence ministry and military staff. The Act specifically criminalises: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes to improperly influence public officials (Sections 3, 4, 10).
Abuse of public office, conflicts of interest, and failure to report corrupt transactions (Sections 34 and 35). [1]

The sanctions for personnel convicted under this Act include:
– Criminal prosecution resulting in imprisonment of up to life for severe offences.
– Dismissal from public service in accordance with the Public Service Act and Defence Act.
– Financial penalties and asset forfeiture under the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) of the National – – Prosecuting Authority.

Military personnel are also subject to internal disciplinary procedures under the Military Discipline Bill [2].

Instances of corruption in the defence sector can be investigated by both the Military Police, or the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks). [1] Likewise the Special Investigating Unit can investigate allegations of corruption and engage in civil litigation to recover funds. In the past, there have been various clear political attempts to influence and undermine corruption investigations. This includes investigations related to the infamous “Arms Deal” [2] as well as in relation to state capture under former President Jacob Zuma where the sections of the State Security Agency were co-opted to seemingly protect the president from investigations while senior law enforcement positions were occupied by loyalists to undermine accountability institutions. [3] Detailed information on how many people in the defence sector have been investigated and the outcomes of investigations, however, generally is not shared with the public. [4]

Article 73 (1) of the SPLA Act, 2009, outlines offences that constitute corruption and nepotism practices. It touches on issues related to bribery, fraud and wrongful gain. The act also states that Any SPLA personnel who: – (a) promotes, recruits, employs or rewards any person on grounds of personal relationship….., commits an offence. Article 73 (2) then imposes serious sanctions on those found guilty of violating the Act and imposes a jail sentence of not more than 14 years. The Act applies to the defence sector and outlines the crimes which includes offering and receiving bribes. While the article criminalizes various corrupt acts—such as fraudulent recruitment, misappropriation, retention of stolen property, and acts intended to cause fraudulent gain—but it does not explicitly mention “soliciting,” “offering,” or “receiving” bribes or advantages. This means that soliciting a bribe, while potentially punishable under the broader category of “fraudulent gain,” is not clearly defined or isolated as a distinct offense, creating legal ambiguity and weakening enforcement clarity.

Corruption remains a major challenge in South Sudan’s public sector. The country is ranked among the most corrupt countries with indexes such as the Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index scoring South Sudan at 13 on a scale from 0 (“highly corrupt”) to 100 (“very clean”) in 2023. [1] The ministry of Defence and senior military officials have also been named in several corruption reports [2], [3] Yet despite the negative impact of corruption on the world’s youngest nation, enforcement of anti-corruption laws remains weak. Instances where military officials have been convicted of corruption are very few, but efforts are ongoing. [4] Furthermore demand for bribery cuts across different sectors such as oil and telecommunication as well as from local and international investors. [5], [6] Yet, the enforcement of corruption and bribery cases are hardly visible in South Sudan with most of the cases being undertaken by foreign jurisdiction. For example, when Glencore Energy UK Ltd was accused of bribery in South Sudan between 2011 and 2015, it was the Serious Fraud Office in the UK that took up the matter and not the government of South Sudan. [6] This has been the trend with other serious corruption cases casting doubt on the government’s commitment to enforce anticorruption laws.

The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) asserts a strict stance against corruption, underpinned by a zero-tolerance policy and legal frameworks designed to ensure accountability. Section 29 of the UPDF Act (2005) grants the Inspectorate of Defence Forces broad powers to enforce transparency, combat graft, and maintain professionalism [2]. This legal mandate provides the foundation for investigating and prosecuting corruption-related offenses within the military. While concerns exist regarding the consistent application of these laws, particularly concerning senior officials, the legal framework itself establishes a basis for action [1].
Furthermore, Uganda’s Anti-Corruption Act (2009) defines a comprehensive range of offences, including: 1) soliciting, offering, giving, or receiving a bribe to influence public duty performance; 2) misuse of public assets, diversion of state property, neglect of duty for personal gain, and 3) influence peddling, fraud, and other forms of abuse of public office. These provisions apply broadly to public officials—including defence and military personnel. In addition, the UPDF Act (2005, Section 29) mandates the Inspectorate of Defence Forces to uphold ethics, investigate graft, and maintain professionalism within the military [2]

When corruption or related crimes are substantiated, the UPDF possesses a range of punitive measures. These sanctions can include criminal prosecution through the military general court-martial, resulting in incarceration for varying durations depending on the severity of the offense. Beyond imprisonment, dismissal from service is a common consequence, effectively terminating the offender’s military career. Furthermore, substantial financial penalties, including the recovery of embezzled funds and fines, are often imposed to deter future misconduct and recoup losses.[2] The prosecution of a senior UPDF officer and two others for the 11-year maintenance of a ghost Russian pilot on the army’s payroll exemplifies the willingness of the UPDF to address high-profile corruption cases.[4][5] The military general court-martial at Kakindye, where officers have been tried and sentenced for corruption, reinforces the enforcement of these measures. These actions, while not guaranteeing absolute eradication of corruption, demonstrate that the UPDF possesses and utilises the legal and punitive tools to address corruption within its ranks.

Strong measures are in place when dealing with corruption and other related crimes. Uganda’s military has a robust legal framework to sanction corruption. However, application is uneven, particularly between low- and high-ranking personnel, leading to public frustration and extrajudicial backlash [2][3].
Sometimes a military general court-martial gives appropriate sentences to those found guilty [1] However, the UPDF has remained one of the most corrupt institutions in Uganda. Recently, there has been a spate of mob attacks, including on members of the security forces involved in land-grabbing wrangles. The frustrated civilians, who are wrangling over family land, accused the soldiers of guarding the land interests of their tormentor, GM Sugar factory [2]. This episode reflects community seeing no effective rule of law and a reaction to land-grabbing by individuals connected to security forces or influential institutions.
Human Rights Reports and historical analysis by the U.S. Department of State and others have consistently noted that lower-ranking officials are more frequently prosecuted, while high-level officers implicated in major corruption often escape accountability, with cases dragging on for year or never processing [3].
Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the discrepancies in application of the law, as low-ranking officers are more likely to be prosecuted than higher ranking ones. High-level officials frequently engage in corrupt practices with impunity, and many corruption cases remain pending for years [3].
While mechanisms exist, their effectiveness and equitable application are compromised.

The Defence Act of Zimbabwe outlines different forms of crime and the corresponding punishments for military personnel [1]. The court martial is responsible for prosecuting members of the military charged with various offences, including criminal acts [1]. Although the Defence Act does not explicitly list crimes such as corruption or bribery, these offences are interpreted and classified within its framework, allowing the court martial to prosecute them under the Act [1]. Additionally, some military members are subject to the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, which explicitly addresses bribery and corruption, and they may be prosecuted in civilian courts under this legislation [2].

The military enforces the application and execution of such prosecution within the military. Investigations in the military are first carried by the Special Investigation Branch, which a division unit within the Zimbabwe Military Police, and they submit the dockets to the court martial for trial [1,2]. The military court martial can then either convict or acquit the accused. However, evidence shows that instead of prosecuting senior army officers, after an allegation of being involved in criminal activities in the defence forces – often they would get a promotion [4]. Major General Chris Mupande was among the three top army generals who were alleged to have been involved in the housing corruption, and it was reported that him and the other two were dismissed from the force [3]. However, two months after the media report on his dismissal, he was promoted to the rank of Lt. General [4].