Are there effective measures in place for personnel found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption, and is there evidence that these measures are being carried out?
Cote d’Ivoire score: 100/100
Offences are not defined; no evidence of other formal mechanisms. Or the military are exempt from law.
Bribery and/or corruption are not defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector, but there are wider legal mechanisms in place (e.g. national laws supported by policies, regulations, or other laws) used to address this.
Bribery and/or corruption are defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector, but 2 or more of the following mechanisms are not provided for: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. Sanctions exist in law, but maximum penalties constitute less than 1 year imprisonment or weak fines that would not act as a deterrent.
Bribery and/or corruption are defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector, but 2 or more of the following mechanisms are not provided for: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.
There are a range of clearly defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector. These offences cover (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. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.
Bribery (offrir des cadeaux aux fonctionnaires, pots-de-vin, extorsion) and corruption are clearly defined offences that apply to defence personnel. Sanctions include more than one year of jail time, significant financial penalties and dismissal from the public office from six months to three years or even a permanent dismissal. In accordance with Act No. 2013-875 of December 23, 2013, ratifying Order No. 660 of September 20, 2013, on the prevention and fight against corruption and similar offences (Ordonnance n” 2013-660 du 20 septembre 2013 relative à laprévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et lesinfractions assimilées), bribery and influence peddling are codified offences as per Articles 15, 16, 18 and 21 (1), (2).
As per Order No. 660, Article 1, the scope of application defining a “public official” would de jure cover personnel in the defence sector because it applies to “any person acting on behalf of the State and/or with State resources”. This includes any public or ministerial officer (tout officier public ou ministériel) such as the personnel working at the Ministry of Defence (1), (2). Order No. 660, Article 29, penalizes the active and passive bribery of a public official through payments, gifts or benefits, as well as the acceptance of a bribe by a public official to carry out (or not to carry out) action as a public official. The penalties include 5-10 years of prison and a fine of 5 to 10 million FCFA. If the public official is a member of the Judiciary, the penalties are 10 years of prison and fines of up to 30 million FCFA (1), (2). Additionally, Order No. 660, Article 63, establishes complementary penalties that apply to natural persons convicted of offences such as bribery. These include the person’s disqualification from holding public office for a period of six months to three years, as well as a permanent disqualification (interdiction définitive). The sanctions for bribery and corruption in Order No. 660, include incarceration time, significant financial fines and dismissal to hold public office from six months to three years.
1. Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations
Convention against Corruption, “Executive Summary: Côte d’Ivoire,” 20 January 2017, p. 2-3, 14,
2. “Ordonnance no.2013-660 du 20 septembre 2013 relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées’ (Order no.2013-660 of 20th September 2017, on preventing and fighting corruption and similar offenses), Official Journal, 25 Sept. 2013,
Cote d’Ivoire score: 0/100
There is a complete failure to investigate or prosecute, even in the face of clear evidence.
Instances of bribery or corruption are superficially investigated or rarely disclipined.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated but not often disciplined. There is clear undue influence in the decision making process.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated or disciplined through formal processes, but undue political influence is attempted and sometimes effective at derailing prosecutions.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated or disciplined through formal processes and without undue political influence.
There is an overwhelming lack of evidence that cases of bribery or corruption among defence personnel are investigated and prosecuted. No evidence in open sources reported of MoD officials sanctioned or disqualified from public office as a result of Order No. 660. Order No. 660 and Order No. 661, which established the High Authority for Good Governance (HABG), are criticized in Ivorian media as ineffective in terms of enforcement (mise en oeuvre). In an article in Libre Afrique, Safiatou Ouattara criticizes the lack of public disclosure in the provisions regarding the personal assets of senior public officials. The article is focused on asset disclosure and not on incidents of bribery among defence personnel, but the criticism of Order No. 660 is based on the lack of strategy and independence of the HABG (1).
In a January 2018 published in Fraternité Matin, President Alassane Ouattara was quoted during a trip to Addis Ababa to attend an African Union summit that Order No. 660 had been amended via Order No. 2018-25 (January 17, 2018) to alter the procedures for disclosure of assets by public officials. There was no mention of any other changes to Order No. 660 that would amend the provisions on sanctions for bribery and corruption among defence personnel (2). It seems likely that Order No. 660 has had very weak enforcement since it was promulgated in 2013. In 2016, a Ministry of Justice evaluation of Côte d’Ivoire by Gnenema Coulibaly stated that legislation such as Order No. 660 had been operational for 3 years and that Côte d’Ivoire’s rankings in the World Bank’s Doing Business Report had been boosted as a result. No mention was made of the Order’s de facto enforcement (3). There is a total lack of evidence in open sources that Order No. 660 is effective.
1. Ouattara, S. “Côte d’Ivoire : Une lutte de façade contre la corruption” (Côte d’Ivoire: Fight against corruption), Libre Afrique, 20 Dec. 2017,
2. Abouja, E. “Lutte contre la corruption/Ouattara: ‘’La Côte d’Ivoire a pris des dispositions pour améliorer la bonne gouvernance’’ (Fight against corruption/Ouattara: ‘Côte d’Ivoire has taken measures to improve good governance), Fraternité Matin, 27 January 2018,
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||35a. Sanctions||35b. Enforcement|
|Albania||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Algeria||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Angola||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Argentina||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Armenia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Australia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Azerbaijan||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bahrain||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bangladesh||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Belgium||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Botswana||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Brazil||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cameroon||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Canada||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Chile||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|China||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Colombia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Denmark||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Egypt||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Estonia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Finland||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|France||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Germany||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Ghana||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Greece||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Hungary||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|India||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Indonesia||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Iran||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Iraq||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Israel||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Italy||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Japan||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Jordan||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Kenya||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Kosovo||25 / 100||75 / 100|
|Kuwait||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Latvia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Lebanon||50 / 100||NEI|
|Lithuania||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Malaysia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Mali||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Mexico||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Montenegro||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Morocco||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Myanmar||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Netherlands||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|New Zealand||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Niger||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Nigeria||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|North Macedonia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Norway||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Oman||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Palestine||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Philippines||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Poland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Portugal||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Qatar||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Russia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Serbia||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Singapore||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Africa||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Korea||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Sudan||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Spain||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Sudan||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Sweden||75 / 100||100 / 100|
|Switzerland||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Taiwan||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Tanzania||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Thailand||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Tunisia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Turkey||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Uganda||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Ukraine||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|United Kingdom||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|United States||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Venezuela||75 / 100||0 / 100|
|Zimbabwe||100 / 100||75 / 100|