Are there independent, well-resourced, and effective institutions within defence and security tasked with building integrity and countering corruption?
8a. Mandate and resources
Kenya score: 75/100
There are no compliance or ethics units in place and no effort to establish them.
There is no evidence of such units, but there is evidence that the country is making proactive efforts to establish them.
Compliance and ethics units in the defence sector are in place. But there are extensive weaknesses in both staffing and funding, and expertise or their mandate is unclear.
There are identifiable compliance and ethics units within defence and security that are mandated to handle integrity and corruption in defence, but there are some weaknesses either in staffing and funding, or expertise.
There are identifiable compliance and ethics units within defence and security that are mandated to handle integrity and corruption in defence, and they are suitably staffed and funded.
There is no specific independent institution tasked with countering corruption in the defence and security sector. The defence and security sector rely on existing institutions mandated by various statutes to counter corruption. The defence sector draws guidance from The Defence Act of 2012 (No. 25 of 2012) that indicates, in section 124, of part VI that corruption or economic related crimes committed by defence personnel will be dealt with accordance with the provisions of existing laws which are enforced by civilian institutions.  Three core interlinked intuitions are particularly relevant. They include, first, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) which initially was established as the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) but later it was replaced with an independent EACC with a stronger, constitutionally protected mandate after enactment of the new constitution in 2010. The second core institution is the Office of the Director of Prosecution (ODPP) which is also an independent Commission. The third core institution is the judiciary; in particular, the High Court Division on Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes (ACEC). The ACEC has a Division in Nairobi City and Admiralty Division in Mombasa City. The Divisions deal with disputes relating to corruption and economic crimes matters that may be filed under any Law in the High Court.
 “The Kenya Defence Forces Act No. 25 of 2012,” January 11, 2019, http://kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/kenyalex/actview.xql?actid=No.%2025%20of%202012#KE/LEG/EN/AR/K/NO.%2025%20OF%202012/sec_124;
Kenya score: 50/100
The institutions/ units are under political control or they are misused. The work of the institutions can be shut down by other defence and security institutions.
The institutions/ units may be in the chain of command of the defence and security institutions that they oversee. However they can not be shut down by these institutions.
The institutions/ units are not in the chain of command of the defence and security institutions which they oversee. They report directly to a senior member of the Ministry of Defence (e.g. Chief of Staff).
Although the EACC still has weaknesses such lack of prosecutory powers, unlike its predecessor, the KACC, EACC as an independent commission has both institutional and financial independence. Institutionally, it means it has independent powers over how it hires and determines how members (director and advisory board members of the Commission are selected, appointed and discharge their duties.  Secondly, EACC has financial independence and is able to obtain funds from the consolidated fund rather than from treasury like earlier with KACC. Nevertheless, the EACC perenially faces resource shortages as it rarely receives its full annual budget request owing to government resource constraints and struggles to pursue politically sensitive cases owing to political interference .
ODPP’s mandate is to prosecute criminal cases including all corruption and economic crime matters investigated by EACC. The ODPP also gives directions to EACC and Department of Criminal Investigations (DCI) over the investigation of corruption and economic crime cases.
 For a summary of the differences between EACC and KACC see Gafar Ayodeji, “Assessing the Strategies of the Defunct Kenya’s Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC): Lessons for the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) (August 1, 2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2638761  OSF, ‘Effectiveness fo Anti-Corruption Agencies in East Africa – Kenya’, 2016, pp. 6-7, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/6fa6e803-2780-417c-a533-36604d01a535/effectiveness-of-anticorruption-agencies-in-east-africa-kenya-20160913.pdf (6 October 2021).
Kenya score: 50/100
These institutions or units are not even aware of corruption risks within their institution.
Staff within the units understand the corruption risks specific to their institutions, but they fail to prepare an effective action plan with appropriate mitigation measures which address the risks.
Staff within the units understand the corruption risks specific to their institutions, but they are not able to address risks appropriately or adequately, either through their own work or by compelling others.
Staff within the units understand the corruption risks specific to their institutions, and are able to address some risks independently. But they are not able to ensure other departments address risks adequately.
Staff within the units understand the corruption risks specific to their institutions. They are able to address risks independently and to ensure that other departments or units handle risks appropriately. Actions to handle risks may include training, oversight, or policy recommendations.
Despite the independence granted to the EACC, ODPP and Judiciary by the constitution, these institutions faces several challenges, particularly with respect to mandate and resources. Most of the funds that EACC for instance receives goes towards meeting salaries and rent expenses, and less is allocated for operations thus unable to effectively carry out its mandate. The same can be argued for the other two. Moreover, EACC was understaffed and internal staff, including the leadership, requires further clarity of role, mandate and accountability.
Some of the major challenges that impact on prosecution of cases within ODPP, that also ends up affecting the effectiveness of the EACC and judiciary in general, include numerous objections such as judicial review applications and constitutional petitions; hostile, uncooperative and unavailable witnesses; shortage of Special Magistrates/anti-corruption courts, frequent transfers of magistrates, high turnover of investigators. 
It is not possible to establish from the data available, from EACC on effective investigation and prosecution of corruption cases in defence and security. This is because the data does not categorically specify by sector, where the cases that the EACC has managed to handle come from. Since 2003 to date, the EACC handled 554 cases with 289 of them having been convicted achieving a 52.1 per cent conviction. The rest of the cases (223) were aquittals while (42) were withdrawn. 
 Gafar Ayodeji, “Assessing the Strategies of the Defunct Kenya’s Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC): Lessons for the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) (August 1, 2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2638761
 Republic of Kenya. Report of the Task Force on the Review of the Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework for Fighting Corruption in Kenya. (Nairobi: Government Printer, 2015) 20-23
 “Convictions,” Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, December 2019, last accessed 15 September 2020, http://eacc.go.ke/default/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Convictions-since-2003.pdf
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||8a. Mandate and resources||8b. Independence||8c. Effectiveness|
|Albania||100 / 100||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Algeria||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Angola||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Argentina||100 / 100||50 / 100||75 / 100|
|Armenia||75 / 100||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Australia||75 / 100||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Azerbaijan||25 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bahrain||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Bangladesh||75 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Belgium||75 / 100||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||100 / 100||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Botswana||25 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Brazil||100 / 100||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||50 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Cameroon||50 / 100||0 / 100||50 / 100|
|Canada||75 / 100||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Chile||50 / 100||25 / 100||50 / 100|
|China||75 / 100||0 / 100||75 / 100|
|Colombia||NEI||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||50 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Denmark||75 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Egypt||50 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Estonia||75 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Finland||100 / 100||50 / 100||NEI|
|France||50 / 100||50 / 100||75 / 100|
|Germany||75 / 100||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Ghana||50 / 100||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Greece||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Hungary||75 / 100||25 / 100||50 / 100|
|India||75 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Indonesia||75 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Iran||50 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Iraq||50 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Israel||75 / 100||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Italy||75 / 100||75 / 100||100 / 100|
|Japan||75 / 100||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Jordan||50 / 100||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Kenya||75 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Kosovo||75 / 100||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Kuwait||25 / 100||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Latvia||75 / 100||75 / 100||100 / 100|
|Lebanon||50 / 100||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Lithuania||75 / 100||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Malaysia||100 / 100||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Mali||50 / 100||NEI||0 / 100|
|Mexico||100 / 100||50 / 100||NEI|
|Montenegro||75 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Morocco||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Myanmar||25 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Netherlands||100 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|New Zealand||100 / 100||100 / 100||NEI|
|Niger||50 / 100||25 / 100||50 / 100|
|Nigeria||50 / 100||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|North Macedonia||75 / 100||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Norway||100 / 100||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Oman||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Palestine||50 / 100||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Philippines||50 / 100||0 / 100||50 / 100|
|Poland||75 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Portugal||75 / 100||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Qatar||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Russia||50 / 100||25 / 100||75 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||25 / 100||NA||NA|
|Serbia||50 / 100||25 / 100||NEI|
|Singapore||75 / 100||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Africa||75 / 100||50 / 100||NEI|
|South Korea||100 / 100||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|South Sudan||0 / 100||0 / 100||NEI|
|Spain||50 / 100||NEI||50 / 100|
|Sudan||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Sweden||100 / 100||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Switzerland||75 / 100||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Taiwan||100 / 100||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Tanzania||50 / 100||25 / 100||NEI|
|Thailand||100 / 100||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Tunisia||50 / 100||50 / 100||NEI|
|Turkey||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Uganda||50 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Ukraine||75 / 100||0 / 100||75 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|United Kingdom||100 / 100||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|United States||100 / 100||25 / 100||100 / 100|
|Venezuela||0 / 100||NA||NA|
|Zimbabwe||50 / 100||100 / 100||25 / 100|