Article 40 of the law against corruption defined corruption as solliticing, receiving, offering or giving. [1] However the law was abrogated in 2020 leaving the Criminal Code as the only legislation to guide the fight against corurption. [2] Article 335 of the Penal Code also defines bribery as solliticing, receiving, offering or giving gifts, promesses or donations any other person or entity, to perform or refrain from performing any act in the course of his duties or employment, whether fair or foul, but not subject to remuneration. [3]

Beninese legislation severely punishes bribes. Criminal penalties can range from 5 or 10 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment , depending on the amount of the bribe. In addition to these penalties, the law also provides for a fine of up to three times the amount of the bribe. [1].

Appropriate sanctions or punishments are applied when bribery occurs. [1] [2] However no evidence was available online showing sanctions being applied in cases of bribery to gain preferred postings. [3][4]

The Anti-Corruption Act clearly and comprehensively defines corruption and bribery. It also addresses practices relating to giving or receiving anything to obtain a favourable action from an authority. This law concerns state services in general, including the army. [1][2]

The law provides for penalties of 10 to 15 years of criminal service and a fine equivalent to double the value of the illicit profit collected by a public authority to carry out an unjust act such as assignment by favoritism or affinity [1] [2].

There are isolated cases of sanctions that are applied. However, again, it is never in accordance with what is provided for by law. It is disciplinary transfers or dismissals that are made in the form of sanctions. [1][2]

In Cameroon, bribery for soliciting preferred military postings is governed by the Penal Code, which outlines formal provisions against corrupt practices in military promotions and postings [1]. Specifically, Article 134 of the Penal Code criminalizes passive corruption, punishing any public official, including military officers, who solicit, accept, or receive bribes in exchange for performing or delaying an official duty. Similarly, Article 134 bis addresses active corruption, sanctioning individuals who offer or promise bribes to influence administrative decisions. The penalties for both offenses range from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment and fines between 200,000 and 2,000,000 FCFA. Additionally, Article 134 ter imposes stricter penalties when corruption concerns public contracts or strategic appointments, potentially doubling the sentence. Furthermore, Article 161, which addresses trafficking of influence, penalizes individuals leveraging political or informal networks to secure military postings, with sentences of 2 to 5 years in prison and similar fines. The policy is designed to ensure fairness and prevent favoritism, with procedures intended to promote merit-based decisions (1). However, despite these legal provisions, informal networks and political connections remain prevalent, highlighting systemic challenges within the framework. These challenges often lead to irregular appointments and promotions, undermining efforts to enforce a transparent system.

Cameroon has established a legal framework to combat bribery, particularly through the Penal Code (Law No. 2016/007) and the Law on the Fight Against Corruption (Law No. 2018/010), which criminalize the offering, receiving, and soliciting of bribes in both public and military administration. These laws provide specific sanctions for individuals involved in corrupt practices related to military postings and promotions.
Sanctions Under Cameroonian Law
1. Penal Code (Law No. 2016/007):
o Article 134 (Passive corruption): Any public official, including military officers, who accepts or solicits a bribe in exchange for carrying out or delaying an official duty faces 5 to 10 years in prison and fines ranging from 200,000 to 2,000,000 FCFA.
o Article 134 bis (Active corruption): Individuals who offer or promise bribes to influence a military appointment or promotion face identical penalties (for both offenses range from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment and fines) between 200,000 and 2,000,000 FCFA. Additionally, Article 134 ter increamposes stricter penalties when corruption iconvolvcerns public contracts or key strategic apposintioments, potentially dowubling the sentences.Furthermo be doubled and fines increased accordingly.
o, Article 161,(Twhich addresses trafficking of influence):,Apenyoalizes ine whodividuals leveragesing political or peinforsonmal influencetworks to secure a military postings,uwith senlawfully may rtenceives of 2 to 5 years in prison and similar fines.
C Thae pollicy is designed to engsure fairness and prevent favoritism, with procedures in Enforcement
Despite the existencde of these legal provisions, enforcement remains inconsistent due to:
• Weak political will to prosecumote high-ranking officials.
• Lack of judicial independence, which allows influential figures to escape punishment.
• Instritutional limitations, -bas boedies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC) lack the power to enforce decisions effectively.
• Selective application of justice, where lower-level officials are more likely to face prosecution than senior officials with political ties.
Thus, Cameroon has clear legal sanctions against bribery, but their impact is diluted by weak enforcement. While the Penal Code and anti-corruption laws provide a solid legal foundation, practical challenges such as political interference, lack of accountability, and resource constraints undermine their effectiveness. [1]

There is not enough information to score this indicator, even though there are laws aimed at preventing such occurrences. Cameroon has legal provisions to prevent bribery in the allocation of preferred postings, including the Penal Code (Law No. 2016/007) and the Law on the Fight Against Corruption, which criminalize bribery and establish severe penalties for offenders. Institutions such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC) are mandated to address corruption-related offences. An interviewee acknowledged that, notwithstanding, bribery remains prevalent, and although there are occasional sanctions for lower-level bribery cases, high-ranking individuals are rarely held accountable due to political patronage and interference within the judiciary.[1] Aside from this source, our extensive searches from open sources and other research participants could not help validate the regularity and consistency of the application of the sanctions.

Ivorian law in general and the military regulations in force in Côte d’Ivoire punish corruption. Articles 233 and 234 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to offer, give or promise a bribe to a public official, or to solicit, authorise or receive a bribe. Soliciting or paying a public official to perform an official function is considered an offence [1]. However, there are no specific mechanisms to address bribery related to assignments. In addition, Articles 28 and 29 of Order No. 2013-660 of 20 September 2013 on the prevention and punishment of corruption and related offences also criminalise any public official who solicits, accepts or receives offers, promises, advantages or gifts in order to refrain from performing an act within the scope of their mandate [2].

Article 233 of the Criminal Code provides for a prison sentence of three months to one year for any public official who solicits or accepts, for himself or for a third party, a payment in cash or in kind as remuneration for an act of his office already performed. Article 234 provides that “anyone who, in order to obtain the performance, the execution or postponement of an act, or one of the favours or advantages provided for in Article 233, resorts to violence or threats, promises, offers, gives or makes a gift, or yields to requests tending towards corruption, even if he did not take the initiative, shall be liable to the same penalties [1]. In addition, Order No. 2013-660 provides for prison terms of 5 to 10 years and fines of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 francs [2].

No publicly available evidence has been found concerning cases of corruption as regards access to privileged positions. The documented cases concern corruption in general [1, 2, 3]. This indicator is thus marked Not Applicable.

There are strict regulatory policies that prohibit bribery for soliciting postings. This is captured in the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) which strictly abhors corruption among public officials, of which military personnel are not immune since Section 95 of the Armed Forces Act 1962 (C.I. 12) commits personnel. The Criminal-Offences-Act-1960 Section 240 defines corruption to include the circumstance where “A public officer, juror, or voter is guilty of corruption in respect of the duties of his office or vote, if he directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as such officer, juror, or voter to be influenced by the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by him, or by any other person, from any person whomsoever.” (1). The Criminal Offences Act explicitly defines the Acceptance of bribe by public officer, after doing act in section 244, and the promise of bribe to public officer, after act done in section 245 (2). The Code of Service Discipline also enjoins service personnel to put up behaviour that may not put them in acts that may lead to bribery. (3) (4)

Corruption cases within the Ghana Armed Forces are prosecuted in accordance with the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), the Service Code of Discipline, and the Armed Forces Regulations (Parts 1 and 2). (1) These legal frameworks establish clear guidelines for addressing and penalizing corrupt activities, ensuring that such offences are met with appropriate legal action. The Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (29) defines what may constitute bribery and corruption under sections 252, 253 and 254, which the Criminal and Other Offences Act (Act 30) in section 296 states the sanctions under Act 29 as mentioned are liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than 25 years. A practical example of this is the recent case involving two military personnel who were allegedly involved in the extortion of money. These individuals have been formally charged and arraigned before the court for prosecution. (2) The Office of the Inspector General of the Ghana Armed Forces can also address infringements relating to corruption cases in the Ghana Armed Forces.

Appropriate sanctions are enforced when a soldier is deemed to have taken a bribe. (1) Yet effective enforcement remains a significant challenge due to the mutual complicity between ‘givers’ and ‘takers’ that creates a covert environment making it difficult to detect and punish offenses. Cultural and institutional pressures also discourage personnel from reporting corrupt activities, as doing so could lead to retaliation or ostracization. (2)

The principal offenses under the Bribery Act include giving and offering a bribe (Bribery Act, Section 5); receiving and requesting a bribe (Bribery Act, Section 5); bribery of foreign public officials (Bribery Act, Section 8); failure of a private entity to implement procedures for the prevention of bribery (Bribery Act, Section 9); failure of a private entity to prevent bribery by an associated person (Bribery Act, Section 10); and assisting a person or entity to give a bribe (Bribery Act, Section 13). An “associated person” in the Act refers to someone who performs services on behalf of another as an agent, employee, or in any other capacity (Bribery Act, Section 11) [1]. The Public Officer Ethics Act (2009) 2003 in Article 12 addresses the declaration of conflicts of interest and the conduct expected of state officers [2].
Even though these laws are in place, there is evidence of pervasive and frequent solicitation of bribes at each stage of recruitment process [3].

The Bribery Act, 2016, the Leadership and Integrity Act, and the KDF Act, 2012 provide legal grounds for punishing bribery in public service, including within military structures.

Specifically:

Section 5–10 of the Bribery Act criminalise both giving and receiving bribes to obtain undue advantage (including postings), with penalties including:

Fines of up to KSh 5 million or double the benefit received (whichever is higher).

Imprisonment of up to 10 years.

KDF Act (Section 105–109) provides for court-martial prosecution of service members for corruption-related offences, including abuse of office or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

For instance, Major Ibrahim Juma Wasike, a Kenya Defence Forces Officer was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison by a court martial sitting at Lang’ata Barracks after he was found guilty of recruitment malpractices [1].
While there is limited publicly available evidence of financial penalties being imposed in practice (beyond incarceration), the legal framework clearly enables all four forms of sanction: criminal prosecution, jail time, dismissal, and fines.

Appropriate sanctions and punishments are regularly applied in cases of bribery within the KDF. For example, three KDF officers were charged by the Court Martial at Kahawa Garrison for soliciting bribes. They faced charges under Section 313 of the Penal Code for obtaining money by false pretenses and under Section 121 of the KDF Act, 2012, for conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline [1].

Additionally, Major Ibrahim Juma Wasike was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison by a Court Martial at Lang’ata Barracks after being found guilty of recruitment malpractices [2]. In another case, Sergeant Robert Kipkemoi allegedly lost his position in the Kenya Air Force after being found guilty of soliciting a bribe [3].

Liberian law clearly prohibits bribery under the LACC Act (2008L), which defines it as a corrupt act across all public service—including the armed forces. Although the Act names bribery as a corrupt act, it doesn’t explicitly enumerate the behaviours (offering, receiving, soliciting) that constitute it. However, the Penal Code defines bribery to include offering, giving, or agreeing to give and soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept a thing of value for a public servant’s official action/violation of duty.[1] Section 12.53 explicitly focuses on unlawful compensation for assistance in government matters, outlining “Appointment, employment, advancement or retention as a public servant.
Additionally, professional conduct is embedded in the National Defense Act (2008).
Military operations are guided by Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), developed for each specific mission. These SOPs address corruption and bribery as critical issues. The Code of Conduct, which applies to public officials, does prohibit the acceptance of gifts or incentives in exchange for performing official duties. Still, its application within the military remains unclear.[2]
To sum up, the Liberian Penal Law specifies all forms of bribery for appointment, employment, and advancement.[3][4]

Liberia’s legal framework does provide sanctions for bribery in relation to promotions and postings. Section 12.53 of the Liberian Penal Law (Title 26) explicitly criminalises bribery for employment, promotion, or advancement, categorising such acts as a first-degree misdemeanor. This provision applies to both offering and accepting bribes, thereby covering multiple aspects of the offence.
In terms of criminal prosecution, bribery (12.50 section) is a second-degree felony (up to 5 years); specifically on trading in public office for appointment/promotion (12.53 section) is a first-degree misdemeanor (up to 1 year). For a first-degree misdemeanor, fines are capped at US$1,000 or double the gain; for felonies, fines are generally double the gain if any, otherwise imprisonment only. That is not necessarily “considerable,” and it depends on proving a gain.[1]
The Code of Conduct prohibits gifts as an incentive to official of government.[2] While this reinforces ethical standards, it does not specify penalties beyond those established in the Penal Law. This only involves administrative sanctions: suspension, demotion, dismissal for misconduct.[2]

There is not enough information to score this indicator. In March 2020, the MoD warned the public against paying bribes to secure AFL recruitment, insisting that personnel caught soliciting bribes would face disciplinary action. While this could be a deterrent, it does not point to a record of the imposition of sanctions.[1] Regarding the application of sanctions, the Liberian MoD expresses that court-martials, administrative sanctions, and military police investigations are used to handle cases, but notes that the private nature of military justice limits the public exposure of cases.[2] This corroborates the recent LACC reporting, which catalogues investigations and case referrals, but there is no publicly documented AFL case of sanctions for bribery for obtaining postings/recruitment.[3] Yet, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) periodically offers legal briefings to servicemen on accountability, according to the MoD.[5] Notwithstanding this claim, all interviewees, a national security adviser and a former chief of logistics in the armed forces, maintained that they have not come across specific incidents where the enforcement of a policy involving bribes to gain a preferred posting was applied.[4][5] This might stem from the secrecy surrounding cases, which possibly precludes the JAG’s briefings from discussing sanctions. This makes it difficult to comment on the consistency and regularity of the application of sanctions when bribery occurs.

Article 179 of the Penal Code as well as article 25 of the Anti-Corruption Law prohibit bribery including to solicit, agree, offer and give any offers, promises, gifts or benefits [1]. Article 36 of the Order establishing the Code of Conduct of the Malagasy army prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of gifts, favors, invitations, gratuities, remuneration or any other advantage that resembles bribes [2].

The penalties provided for by law are one to five years’ imprisonment and a large fine. The law establishing the General Status of Soldiers details other possible sanctions including demotion or even dismissal [1][2].

Sometimes the sanctions provided for by law are actually applied against military personnel guilty of receiving bribes [1]. But the military rarely communicate on these “internal” affairs within their institution that are considered sensitive [2]. On the issue of corruption in general and sanctions against those who have committed offences related to the payment of bribes in particular, direct sources do not always provide details. [3]. Nevertheless, sanctions exist but they are rarely applied.

The Penal Code in its articles 120 to 123 prohibits and punishes bribery from civil servants.[1] This prohibition clearly applies to the defence and security sector as the general status of the military and the service regulations require military personnel to behave irreproachably and in accordance with the laws and regulations.[2] Article 121 tackles bribery for solicited preferred postings and states that it includes “solicited or accepted offers or promises, or solicited or received gifts or presents”.

Sanctions include five to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of twice the value of the promises accepted, goods received or requested, but not less than FCFA 100,000.[1]

It has not been possible to find evidence of sanctions being applied in cases of bribery, so this indicator is marked as Non Applicable. [1] [2]

The policy on refusing bribes to obtain preferential positions is governed by the Anti-Corruption Law [1], which classifies bribery, fraud, extortion, nepotism, illicit transactions, misappropriation of financial and property resources, and influence peddling as corrupt activities (both passive and active corruption). The Strategy for Preventing and Combating Corruption in Public Administration [2] reinforces the classification of these illicit activities within public administration sectors. Additionally, the Public Probity Law establishes legal frameworks to prevent such practices, defining the principles of public morality and respect for public property. It sets out the legal regime for public servants, ensuring adherence to principles such as legality, non-discrimination, equality, loyalty, public probity, the supremacy of public interest, efficiency, responsibility, and justice [3]. In Mozambique, bribery is a crime and subject to prison sentences and fines, depending on the severity of the act and the position of the person involved. Anti-corruption legislation defines bribery as an illegal practice and provides for those who commit it, whether granting or receiving undue advantages. The Penal Code provides for prison sentences of 2 to 8 years and a fine, if a greater penalty is not applicable [4].

Administrative and criminal sanctions are established in cases where corruption and bribery are used to obtain preferential positions. These sanctions involve warning, public repression, fine, demotion, dismissal, expulsion [1] or criminal proceedings that culminate in imprisonment and confiscation of assets, depending on the specific cases and level of severity [2].

Regarding policies that prohibit bribery to obtain preferential positions, several legal instruments establish clear rules and sanctions. These include the Defence Policy [1], the Statute of the Military of the Armed Forces of Mozambique [2], the Internal Regulations of the Ministry of Defence [3], the Law on Military Crimes [4], and other relevant legislation. Together, these instruments prohibit the granting or obtaining of preferential positions through illicit means and outline the responsibilities of the Ministry of National Defence and the Armed Forces in preventing such practices [5]. In cases of non-compliance, there are disciplinary, administrative and criminal sanctions, ranging from disciplinary proceedings, demotion, fines and imprisonment or expulsion, depending on the severity of the specific cases [6].
However, enforcement is inconsistently applied. For instance, the Chief of Defence, Adm. Joaquim Mangrasse, suspended basic training courses and sent 500 recruits home after internal investigations found fraud/corruption in the recruitment process [6]. This is a concrete enforcement step that directly targets bribery/fraud in access to postings. Nonetheless, there are continued allegations by senior insiders stating no surprises by corruption in military recruitment [7] and cases of nepotism and favouritism both for preferential positions and for appointments for recruitment of new recruits to the ranks of the Armed Forces [8].
While enforcement is applied in some cases, open-source reporting does not show systematic disciplinary outcomes in posting/bribery cases.

Article 132 of the Penal Code states that individuals who request, accept, or solicit bribes in exchange for favorable decisions, appointments, promotions, or contracts with public authorities will be punished. [2]. However, there is no specific anti-corruption policy addressing bribery for obtaining preferred postings within the Nigerien armed forces. [1][2]

The 2003 Military Penal Code [1] establishes penalties for corruption within the armed forces. Article 228 states that officers convicted of corruption, theft, or other general crimes may face dismissal, demotion, or imprisonment. Additionally, the Military Judiciary Police, which operates under the Ministry of Defense, is responsible for detecting and investigating all violations of military law at all levels of the armed forces (Articles 46-48). The Public Penal Code [2], which applies to all civil servants, including military personnel, also contains anti-corruption provisions. Chapter III, Section 7 outlines that corruption and influence peddling are punishable by two to ten years of imprisonment and fines ranging from 50,000 to 1,000,000 CFA francs (Article 130). Article 132 extends these penalties to individuals who request, accept, or solicit bribes in exchange for favourable decisions, appointments, promotions, or contracts with public authorities. In such cases, offenders face one to five years of imprisonment and fines between 50,000 and 1,000,000 CFA francs.

Some cases of bribery during recruitment have been identified and sanctioned [1]. This demonstrates that enforcement does occur in some instances, although it is neither systematic nor fully transparent. Additionally, the opacity of the military system [2], especially following the July 2023 military coup, significantly reduces the likelihood that allegations of bribery in postings or promotions are consistently investigated or addressed. With military authorities now firmly controlling governance structures and having abolished key oversight mechanisms, including parliamentary and judicial review in defence matters, it is increasingly difficult to obtain credible or verifiable information about internal disciplinary actions or corruption investigations. This environment discourages whistleblowing, weakens investigative journalism, and effectively shields senior officers from scrutiny, making it unlikely that allegations of bribery in postings or promotions are consistently addressed—even when such practices are widely suspected within the ranks.

Nigeria has a comprehensive legal framework prohibiting bribery and corruption. The Constitution (Fifth Schedule, Part I) [1] and Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act prohibit public officers from soliciting or receiving bribes [2]. Additionally, the Criminal Code and Penal Code, which apply in different regions of the country, and special legislation like the ICPC Act (2000) and EFCC Act (2004), provide detailed definitions of bribery that cover all four key elements: offering, giving, soliciting, and receiving bribes [3].

However, while these legal provisions are robust, they are not specifically tailored to the context of bribery for preferred postings in the military or defence sector, nor is there evidence of strict internal rules or sector-specific policies within the armed forces that address this form of bribery in a targeted way.

Nigeria’s legal and institutional framework provides for sanctions against bribery, including bribery aimed at influencing postings or appointments in the armed forces.
The Criminal Code Act (Cap C38) defines bribery broadly and prescribes criminal sanctions. Under Sections 98 to 99, both giving and receiving bribes by public officers are criminal offences, punishable by up to 7 years’ imprisonment.The Criminal Code, however, does not specifically mention bribery for preferred military postings, but its provisions are applicable to all public officers, including military personnel.

The Armed Forces Act and Nigerian Army Code of Conduct address corruption and misconduct internally. Section 118 of the Army Act refers to corruption and financial malfeasance as punishable offences. The Army has institutional mechanisms such as courts martial and the Special Investigation Bureau (SIB) to investigate and prosecute such offences. Punishments under the Army Act include dismissal, imprisonment, loss of rank, and forfeiture of benefits.

Therefore, the legal framework provides for strong, enforceable sanctions—including criminal prosecution, dismissal, and incarceration, even if it not explictly outlined bribery for preferred military postings.

The Nigerian military has a mechanism for investigating and sanctioning offences such as misconduct, theft, and corruption, among others. Notably, persons accused of such offences are tried through a court martial, and if convicted are subjected to appropriate punishment [1]. For instance, it was reported that no fewer than 644 personnel of the Nigerian Army appeared before a court martial between 2019 and 2023 to stand trial for various offences bordering on misconduct, murder, and corruption, among others [2].
In June 2020, Major General Hakeem Otiki was found guilty by a court martial for corruption and was dismissed with disgrace and dishonour [3]. In May 2024, six soldiers were dismissed or sanctioned for misconduct, including corruption-related offences [4].

Although specific cases of bribery for preferred postings are not always reported in the public domain, these examples show that serious sanctions (including criminal and administrative penalties) are applicable and have been enforced in cases of corruption, which would encompass such conduct.

In Senegal, bribery is criminalised under both the general Penal Code, with specific provisions addressing civil servants, public agents (including military personnel). The Penal Code of Senegal in articles 156 to 158 prohibits active and passive corruption by public official: soliciting or accepting bribes, gifts, or promises for acts related to their office. [1]

The law imposes very heavy penalties for corruption, particularly in the defence forces. Violation of the provisions of articles 156, 157 and 157 of the Senegalese Criminal Code will result in imprisonment of between two and ten years for the accused and between on and five years for their clerks or agents; a fine of between 250,000 and 500,000 francs will always be imposed, in accordance with article 156. [1]

There are no documented evidence indicating that Senegalese military personnel have been investigated or prosecuted for paying bribes to gain preferred postings. [1] [2] [3]

Sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act outline offences related to corruption including offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting a gratuity from public officials making bribery in relation to employment opportunities illegal. Section 2 provides an interpretation of gratifications and relationships of giving or receiving illicit gratifications under the Act while section 3 creates a general offence of corruption related to giving/receiving gratifications to influence an individual in carrying out an official act in an unauthorised way. Subsequent sections clarify corrupt acts in relation to specific roles and office bearers. [1]

Corrupt acts involving postings or bribery within the defence sector are criminal offences under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, carrying heavy penalties such as up to 15 years imprisonment and significant financial fines. [1]
Parliamentary records show instances of officers being charged, convicted, and sentenced following investigations (e.g., multiple 5- to 10-year prison terms). When personnel are convicted, internal disciplinary action, including demotion, dismissal, and permanent disbarment from public office, is also invoked [2].

Allegations of corruption in the defence sector are investigated by a variety of law enforcement bodies. [1] However, there is evidence that political interference has at times undermined corruption investigations including the infamous “Arms Deal” and 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. [2] The head of Military Police has previously indicated that more junior officers are suspended than senior officers, which could be an indication that sanctions are not applied equally. [3] The Auditor-General has similarly made findings against the Department of Defence over a failure to sanction officials over irregular expenses. [4]

The issue of bribery is covered in Section 73. of the SPLA Act of 2009 which talks about Nepotism and Corrupt Practices. This section of the law also talks about the crime of one who promotes, recruits, employs or rewards any person on grounds of personal relationship, which could be as a result of bribery. Other legal frameworks such as the SSPDF Act 2022, the Anti-Corruption Commission Act and the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 (as amended) also exist and can be applied in the right context.

Section 72 (2) is also clear on the sanctions to befall those found guilty of bribery. The law states that “Any SPLA personnel who, commits the offence of nepotism and corrupt practices, and shall on conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” [1]. However, the law does not prescribe financial sanctions which could also go a long way in deterring acts of bribery.

While there are formal laws to tackle bribery, there are no publicly reported cases of sanctions being applied to those involved in bribery. A look at the existing media sources [1], there is no indication of convictions for bribery cases. In fact, the government of South Sudan has been quick to dismiss international reports that indicated the country was facing financial scam including bribery. [2] Since there is no indication, publicly available, of convictions for bribery cases, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

Section 176 of the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) Act 2005 focuses on fraudulent offences. Subsection (b) states that a person subject to military law, who improperly demands or accepts compensation, consideration or personal advantage in respect of the performance of any military duty or respect of the performance of any military duty or in respect of any matter relating to the defence forces commits an offence and is, on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years.[1] Bribery in the UPDF is a serious offence and when found guilty, officers are imprisoned and sometimes dismissed with disgrace from service.[2] Furthermore, the Anti-corruption Act which defines and penalizes various forms of bribery, including offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.[3]

Section 176 (c) of the UPDF Act 2005 states that any person who receives directly or indirectly, whether personally or by or through any member of his or her family or a person under his or her control, or for his or her benefit, any gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration either in money or otherwise, from any person, for assisting or favouring any person, in the transaction of any business relating to the defence forces or to any forces cooperating in the defence forces or to any mess, institute or canteen operated for the use and benefit of members of those forces commits an offence and is, on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years.[1] In this sense, the Anti-corruption Act stipulates that any person convicted of an offence under sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding two hundred forty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both. [2]

The UPDF has made notable progress in enforcing sanctions against corruption, particularly in personnel postings, fostering a more transparent and merit-based system. For instance, in Mogadishu, August 16, 2016, nine UPDF soldiers serving under AMISOM were sentenced to prison for misconduct related to a fuel racket. They were found guilty of pursuing personal interest and endangering operational efficiency, contrary to Section 124 of the UPDF Act. The UPDF Divisional Court Martial, sitting in Mogadishu, handed down sentences ranging from one to three years, demonstrating that the UPDF is willing to prosecute and punish both senior and junior officers for corrupt practices, even in international peacekeeping missions. Brig. Gen. Dick Olum, Chairman of the Court Martial, reinforced that the UPDF would not tolerate misconduct among its officers serving in peacekeeping missions, further strengthening its commitment to integrity [1][2].

However, concerns persist regarding the consistent enforcement of these measures. Reports indicate that corruption remains a significant challenge, and sanctions are not uniformly applied across all ranks. The U.S. Department of State (2022) noted that former Deputy Chief of the UPDF, Peter Elwelu, was sanctioned by the United States for alleged involvement in significant corruption, yet he has not faced prosecution or formal investigations in Uganda [3][4][5]. These cases highlight that while legal frameworks exist and have been enforced in some instances, questions remain about their consistent application, particularly when it comes to high-ranking officials. Strengthening oversight mechanisms and ensuring equal enforcement of anti-corruption measures at all levels remain critical steps toward enhancing institutional credibility and public trust in the UPDF’s integrity.

In the Zimbabwe Defence forces, in particular in the military, there are no specific policies related to bribes and or refusing bribes on preferred postings [3]. While the Defence Act guides on the crimes which soldiers can be punished, the issue of bribery is not well defined in the Defence Act [2]. However, the Criminal Law and Codification Act defines define bribery and if interpreted as such, those officers who exchange bribes can be prosecuted by court martial and imprisoned [2].

The Defence Act [2] provides legal sanctions for a range of misconduct offences, including corrupt practices, abuse of office, and conduct prejudicial to military discipline. Although bribery for preferred postings is not explicitly named in the law, such conduct is prosecuted under these general categories. Sanctions include court martial, dismissal from service, reduction in rank, fines, and in some cases, incarceration, depending on the severity of the offence.
When there is evidence of bribery linked to postings, the matter is investigated by the Special Investigation Branch of the Military Police. Cases may then be referred to the commanding officer or to a court martial, particularly if the amount of money involved is substantial [1].
While legal provisions exist and serious sanctions are available, the lack of a specific statute targeting bribery for postings lowers the overall clarity and enforceability of these measures.

Punishment is enforced either through battalion orders, brigade orders or court martial prosecution and sentencing if found guilty [1]. At battalion level, those found guilty of an offence for example bribery as might be interpreted through and in the Defence Act, will serve their punishment depending on the officer commander and or the commanding officer [1]. The punishment is either done at the battalion level, enforced by the Regimental police or done at the brigade level enforced by Brigade police, who are slightly the same as the Regimental police though located at the Brigade level [1]. However, if the punishment is to be done in the Detention Barracks, then the convicted soldier goes to the City of Bulawayo where the Detention Barrack is situated [1, 3]. In cases where the court martial finds the person guilty, then they either sentence the soldier to the Detention barracks or civilian prison since the Defence Act allows that form of punishment [2,3]. However, if the bribery involves senior officers, then it is difficult to do investigations in the barracks and enforce any form of punishment [1].