Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q34.

Do the Defence Ministry, Defence Minister, Chiefs of Defence, and Single Service Chiefs publicly commit, through, for example, speeches, media interviews, or political mandates, to anti-corruption and integrity measures?

34a. Chiefs/Ministers: Internal communications

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

34b. Chiefs/Ministers: Public commitment

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

34c. Unit commanders and leaders

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

Anti-corruption has been set as one of the main priorities for Albania’s European Union (EU) integration process. As a result, there is a broad anti-corruption discourse at political levels. As part of this discourse, there is a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), as part of the overall inter-sectoral action as defined by the Inter-Sectoral Strategy against Corruption (ISSC) [1]. After the action plan for 2014-2017 expired in June 2017 [2], a renewed action plan on anti-corruption has been adopted in June 2018 for 2018-2020 [5]. Progress reports for January-December 2019 reflect on the progress achieved by the MOD [6].

However, there is a gap between the overall anti-corruption discourse and action. The MoD, does not have an integrity plan. New integrity plans were scheduled to be adopted in 2019 [3]. Another trend is the decline of the anti-corruption discourse by the MoD over the last two to three years and an increased flow of accusations of corruption in the defence sector by the opposition [4]. Despite the degree of implementation of the anti-corruption action plan as well as its impact, the MoD has been very active publicly on corruption-related issues in the defence sector.

Corruption appeared as a big issue during the first two years after the current government came to power (2013-2015). The review of MoD publications shows that corruption is mostly part of the political discourse, covered mainly by the minister of defence with little or no involvement of military commanders [1, 2, 3].

There is little communication on anti-corruption within the MoD and the armed forces. The review of the MoD bi-monthly magazine, “Revista Mbrojtja” and the weekly newspaper “Gazeta Ushtria” that are both marketed mainly to MoD and armed forces members, reveal a very limited number of articles where corruption is addressed during the period 2013-2018 [1, 2].

The review of the internal communication of the armed forces is based on the military magazine El-Djeich, which is published monthly by the armed forces. In the editions published between 2016 and 2018 (1), former President Bouteflika, who was also officially the Minister of Defence, called on the armed forces to face “corruption and drugs, which eat away the economy and security” in August 2018 (2). No other more concrete commitments to fight corruption were found.

Bouteflika’s August 2018 speech in which he called on Algerians to face “corruption and drugs, which eat away the economy and security” (1) was reported in the media (2). Statements by Deputy Defence Minister Salah related to the topic of corruption could only be found with regards to organized crime but not corruption. In May 2018, he welcomed the results that have been achieved in the fight against terrorism and organized crime (3). No explicit commitments on fighting corruption could be found by the President or the Vice-Defence Minister.

There is no evidence that commitments to anti-corruption have been made by senior officers of the Ministry of Defence or armed forces staff members. No information could be found in the official journal El-Djeich (1) or local news.

There are however statements from other officials. For example, the Director-General of the Police said that one has to be “clean” to be able to fight corruption effectively. The statement came in the wake of a seizure of 700kg of cocaine in May 2018 (2). The Minister of Justice also emphasized that no one is above the law and that corruption cases will be handled with rigour and confidence. He also said that the fight against corruption is pursued under the directives and guidelines of the President of the Republic (3).

Since President Lourenço took office, there has been more emphasis in public speeches by top officials of the armed forces, as well as the Minister of Defence and others to highlight the fight against corruption in the defence sector as a priority (1), (2), (3). For example, in July 2018, Angop reported that “The Chief of Staff of the FAA, António Egídio de Sousa Santos “Discipline”, announced in the city of Lobito, among other measures, the fight against corruption, impunity and nepotism within the Armed Forces, taking into account the context that the country goes through” (1).In March 2018, Angop reported that “Hélder Pinto, a judge from the court of the Military Region Center said, Corruption is an evil that affects the defence and national security organs, as it can negatively influence their efficiency and operationality” (3).
However, there is no public information on internal strategic communications on fighting corruption nor is there evidence of the speeches translating into effective measures to conduct reforms.

While a commitment to fight corruption in the military is publicly stated (see Q34A), little is said about specific integrity measures and management of risk (1), (2), (3), (4).

Since President Lourenço took office, there has been more emphasis in public speeches by top officials of the armed forces, as well as the Minister of Defence and others to highlight the fight against corruption in the defence sector as a priority (1), (2), (3). For example, in July 2018, Angop reported that “The Chief of Staff of the FAA, António Egídio de Sousa Santos “Discipline”, announced in the city of Lobito, among other measures, the fight against corruption, impunity and nepotism within the Armed Forces, taking into account the context that the country goes through” (1). In March 2018, Angop reported that “Hélder Pinto, a judge from the court of the Military Region Center said, Corruption is an evil that affects the defence and national security organs, as it can negatively influence their efficiency and operationality” (3). However, there is no public information on internal strategic communications on fighting corruption nor is there evidence of the speeches translating into effective measures to conduct reforms.

There is no evidence of statements by unit commanders and leaders, as internal defence service publications cannot be accessed.

Since President Lourenço took office, there has been more emphasis in public speeches by top officials of the armed forces, as well as the Minister of Defence and others to highlight the fight against corruption in the defence sector as a priority (1), (2), (3). For example, in July 2018, Angop reported that “The Chief of Staff of the FAA, António Egídio de Sousa Santos “Discipline”, announced in the city of Lobito, among other measures, the fight against corruption, impunity and nepotism within the Armed Forces, taking into account the context that the country goes through” (1). In March 2018, Angop reported that “Hélder Pinto, a judge from the court of the Military Region Center said, Corruption is an evil that affects the defence and national security organs, as it can negatively influence their efficiency and operationality” (3).

However, there is no public information on internal strategic communications on fighting corruption nor is there evidence of the speeches translating into effective measures to conduct reforms.

The Centre of Human Rights and Integrity was established in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to address human rights and integrity-related issues in the armed forces. The centre aims at strengthening human rights and integrity in different subdivisions of the armed forces of MoD, control over responsibilities in the area of human rights and integrity, develop recommendations on new governance methodology based on the system of values of human rights and integrity, etc [1]. As Interviewee 7 said, “The establishment of the Centre is unique considering the complicated nature of the relationships in the region” [2]. There were numerous publications about corruption crimes in the armed forces over the years, especially about the abuse of material resources, but the vast majority of them remained intact. Only after the revolution, the conversation about corruption has increased. Minister of Defence Tonoyan stated that there are corruption risks in the armed forces [3]. On March 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Tigran Avinyan delivered a lecture on the “Struggle Against Corruption, Competitive, Participatory and Inclusive Economy” within the framework of the operational meeting with the Armenian Armed Forces’ leadership. He briefed the participants about the main directions, anti-corruption mechanisms and key principles of the anti-corruption policy adopted by Armenia within the framework of their effective implementation [4].

Though permanently in focus, the issue of corruption in the defence sector has become even more urgent after the ‘April War’ in 2016. The Defence Minister Vigen Sargsyan stressed the importance of combating corruption in the defence sector at a press conference on November 16, 2016. In particular, he said that fight against corruption is effective when you introduce a system that eliminates chances of corruption enticement. Nobody succeeded to eliminate corruption to zero in the world but to make it an exception rather than a pattern is a must [1].
In a range of public speeches, press conferences, and other occasions, the issue of combating corruption is stressed by the then minister [2, 3, 4, 5] and newly appointed minister of defence and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces [6, 7]. In terms of communicating the message, all those authorized to speak publicly on the issue of corruption are consistent.

No publicly available evidence was found with the statement of commitment by the unit commanders or other leaders in the armed forces [1]. However, we can find some information about the importance of the issue within the MoD. For instance, on March 26 2019, tests were conducted at the MoD within the framework of the operational meeting with the leadership of the armed forces. Through the questionnaires and direct contact, the knowledge of the participants of the operative gathering about the effects of constitutional changes, the civilian control, the fight against corruption and the military management system was checked up [2].

There is not any openly stated and effectively implemented anti-corruption plan for defence sector in Azerbaijan. Because of that, it seems there is no official commitment to integrity and anti-corruption in the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Officially Baku still has not joined NATO’s program, Building Integrity, which is intended to strengthen countries against corruption, no reason has been given (1).
According to the National Security Concept (Article 4.3.1), the government will continue its consistent efforts on the following issues:

Democratic and civilian control over all security structures,
their transparency, effective fight against corruption, increasing the responsibility of high-ranking officials inform the public about the activities of high-ranking officials in the fields of responsibility of MPs, mass media (2).

Parliament adopted the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Combating Corruption in 2004 (3), and there is a National Strategy on Increasing Transparency and Combating Corruption which was adopted in 2007 (4). After a change in the leadership of the MoD in 2013, officials from MoD have begun to declare that they will fight corruption in the army (5). Perhaps, the Anti-Corruption Group has been formed in the MoD, but this group is not strong enough and is under the strong influence of the leadership. Officials from the MoD told this reviewer that the armed forces were implementing the National Action Plan on combating corruption (2012-2015) (6). Based on this, an internal anti-corruption strategy was subsequently developed at the ministry. But there is a little commitment to this issue among MoD leadership, and the internal strategy is superficial. There is a lack of political will when it comes to genuine support for anti-corruption and integrity measures.

There were some statements, opinion and interviews from officials defence and security structures about anti-corruption measures in the last years. However, according to experts, these statements show that there is no serious anti-corruption strategy in the MoD and other structures.
After the change in the leadership of the MoD in 2013, the new minister Zakir Hasanov announced that he would fight corruption in the army (1). In August 2015, he said, “All officers involved in corruption, regardless of rank or position, will be held accountable before the law. They have no place in the army. This is the most important task our President has set before us” (5).
In 2018, Zakir Hasanov also talked about the Chamber of Accounts review of the MoD, when he answered the question on army control mechanisms at a press conference. He said the control over the army is very strong. “Sometimes such opinions are said why the Chamber of Accounts does not check the Ministry of Defence? When the Chamber of Accounts worked for a month in some institutions, they worked for us five months. There was no violation of law.” The minister noted that the people of Azerbaijan are the biggest public control, “Everyone sees this in” Open Doors “, and we work closely with other government agencies. The media are taking part in these events” (2).
Further, the military prosecutor Khanlar Veliyev spoke about fighting against corruption in the defence and security sector. According to him, the fight against corruption in the army is carried out on the following documents (3):
– The law “On Combating Corruption”
– “National Action Plan on Combating Corruption in 2012-2015” approved by President Ilham Aliyev’s Order dated September 5, 2012,
– Tasks set forth at the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers, chaired by the head of state on 10 January 2015.
According to the Military Prosecutor in 2017, 123 criminal cases of corruption and bribery about 146 persons were completed and sent to relevant military courts (4).

There are few statements of commitment by officials from MoD and other military structures. According to Vagif Dargahli (1), spokesman of the MoD, some of the tasks in the National Action Plan on Combating Corruption are under the authority of the MoD. “A number of measures have been implemented in the Ministry of Defence in connection with the implementation of the relevant paragraph of the Presidential Decree On the approval of the National Action Plan for the Prevention of Corruption in 2012-2015. This decree and the National Action Plan approved by it have been proclaimed to all staff by the relevant order of the defence minister. Following the order, relevant officials of the MoD were instructed to prepare proposals on the implementation of the Plans, and the proposals were summarized and a separate Action Plan for the National Action Plan was prepared. As part of the action plan is within the competence of the MoD, executive and supervisory bodies, persons, as well as the execution period have been defined. For the first time in the implementation of the “National Action Plan for the Prevention of Corruption for 2012-2015,” legal awareness-raising events, conversations, lessons, and anonymous opinion polls are being organized with the staff. To carry out the activities envisaged in the Action Plan, MoD officials are in military units and at the same time, the relevant military commissions, inspections, revisions work in military units.
According to the Dargahli, regularly by the leadership of the MoD:
– the direct reception of citizens is organized,
– corruption applications and complaints are considered,
– the electronic reception and official response of appeals is provided,
– The Defence Ministry has a “Trust line” and “Trust Mail” in military units,
– mechanisms for implementing civil service recruiting based on competition and transparency are improved,
– Implementation of the defence minister’s order regarding the implementation of the Action Plan is under control and other measures are being taken.
– In January of each year, a report on the measures taken during the past year and their outcomes is being prepared, which is submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers and the Anti-Corruption Commission.
– The inspections carried out in the military units are carried out by the relevant commissions established under the order signed by the defence minister.
– In cases of various violations of the law revealed as a result of inspections, immediate action is taken, acts are drawn up, guilty persons are subjected to material, administrative, disciplinary and criminal liability, and damage to the state is restored.
– Officials and relevant government agencies are informed about each incident.
According to Arzu Rahimov, Head of the State Service for Mobilization and Conscription, the Action Plan against Corruption was prepared and approved by the Service in connection with the implementation of the “National Action Plan for 2012-2015 on Combating Corruption,” implementation of the proposed measures was ensured (2).
Colonel of Justice, Colonel Rauf Kishiyev, said in his interview to the “Army of Azerbaijan” (3) that according to statistical data, the total crime rate in the armed forces is decreasing. Many factors have an impact on reducing the number of crimes. Enhancement of the logistical support of our army, improvement of the social status of servicemen on the rising line, awareness-raising campaigns of commanders and commanders, preventive measures for prevention of crimes and incidents, education of the personnel in the spirit of respect for the law, the improper application of the principle of impunity, the increasing legal culture of servicemen and other factors contribute to the reduction of crime. All these activities are carried out in unity and it is undeniable that they play a big role in the work of investigative bodies.”

The policy of building integrity, decreasing the risk and fighting the corruption within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AFBiH) defines that the Ministry provides guidelines and approves training in the field of integrity building, prevention and decreasing of risk and fighting corruption in the AFBiH. The ministry has defined procedures for prevention of corruption (brought ethic code of conduct, web page for reporting corruption, etc.). Apart from that, the MoD is the first state institution that established the Ethic line on its web page as the tool for reporting of possible irregularities within the MoD and the AFBiH, showing that zero-tolerance for corruption became the way of thinking and acting in the ministry [1, 2].

The fight against corruption is the regular topic in printed publications issued by the Office for Public Relations (MoD and Armed Forces Newsletter, Our Army), as well as in the TV series “Our Strength“ that is broadcasted through electronic media in the country, on the website and Facebook page of the MoD [1].

Commitment by the MoD and AFBiH is seen in the latest report to the Auditing Office of BiH Institutions for 2017, No: 01/02/03-08-16-1-702/187, stating the following, “ [the] fight against fraud and corruption is very important for the ministry due to the very nature of its activities and complexity of the ministry [1].
Members of the ministry participate in seminars and workshops in the country and abroad, related to integrity building and fight against corruption, and some attend seminars organized by NATO and EUFOR[2]. In 2017, following the Strategy of Fight against Corruption 2015-2019 of BiH Council of Ministers and Action Plan for Implementation of the Strategy, the MoD brought the Report on Implementation of Action Plan (2015-2019) of Strategy for Fight against Corruption [2].
News regarding integrity building, the role of the Inspectorate and Parliamentary Military Commissioner, as well as various events related to the realization of the Strategy and Action Plan for Fight against Corruption, is given through public announcements, web and Facebook pages of the MoD. Also, the Law on Free Access to Information is strictly observed and information of public importance are given upon requests, as well as media requests that are answered promptly and transparently, contributing to integrity building and fight against corruption [2].
The MoD participates in a joint project with CIDS that includes the following areas:
– strengthening of the personnel management system
– strengthening of the public procurement system
– strengthening of integrity within BiH MoD and BiH AF.
One of the events dedicated to the strengthening of integrity, prevention and fight against corruption was realized in Konjic on August 30-31, 2018 [3, 4].
The MoD is also responsive to activities that strengthen integrity in different areas and take part in projects initiated by civil society [5].
Public commitment to fighting corruption is also presented through interviews in the media [6, 7].

Readiness and commitment to apply measures in the fight against corruption are also visible in regular attendance and participation of the highest officials of the MoD and AFBiH in numerous meetings and seminars dedicated to anti-corruption measures and integrity building, in which interactive communication is established, as well as communication with media and public. Through appearances in media, it is emphasized that the MoD and AFBiH resolutely contribute to the building of integrity and oppose all that jeopardize prosperity of the MoD and AFBiH, and society as a whole [1].

The Chief of Joint Staff of the AFBiH, appointed in 2018, gave his support to the fight against corruption and that the Action plan can give the desired results only if all members of the AFBiH, but also the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are involved in the fight against corruption. He also addressed the members of the AFBiH that the best way to fight corruption is to carry out their tasks and obligations professionally and to comply with legal provisions consistently [2].

Burkina Faso’s armed forces do not make public speeches without prior authorization from the hierarchy. Defence ministers, chief of defences, and single service chiefs rarely make public speeches. There is no evidence that internal communications relating to corruption are being addressed, except on topics like integrity, even though corruption is widespread among public officials (3). According to UNODC 2017, “From 22 to 23 March 2017, a national workshop on “Police, Gendarmerie and Customs: integrity and combating corruption” was organized in Ouagadougou, in cooperation with the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption…This will allow for the development of more realistic and pertinent strategies” (1). According to GAN 2016, “Corruption is pervasive in all sectors of the economy and government… Foreign donors have pushed the government to pass new anti-corruption legislation in 2015″ (2). Although corruption is criminalized under the Penal Code, however, weak enforcement of these laws, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult…The police and gendarmerie are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in Burkina Faso. Investigations of corrupt practices and the abuse of the police are carried out by the gendarmerie, but results of these investigations are not always made public….. however, only between 1-15% of households report having paid a bribe to the police” (2), (4), (6).

According to the DoS (2017), “use of excessive force, corruption, a climate of impunity, and lack of training contributed to police ineffectiveness… The government announced investigations in progress, but as of September 20, none had led to prosecution.inadequate resources also impeded police effectiveness…NGOs reported pervasive corruption in… the gendarmerie, national police, municipal police. The local NGO Anticorruption National Network (REN-LAC) categorized the municipal police as the most corrupt government sector. They reported a lack of political will to fight corruption, stating the government rarely imposed sanctions against prominent government figures (3). According to BTI 2016, “Isolated cases of corruption are prosecuted, but often without consequence…Though the law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, the government did not implement it effectively. There are few reliable public sources of information about corruption, and the media are often left to publish rumors and accusations. Few government agencies provide customer-friendly services (for example on web sites), which seriously compromises citizens’ ability to obtain information about government operations, including the proposed national budget” (5). The oversight mechanisms are not also able to nurture a tradition of internal communication on corruption or have the military to point out corruption or integrity in the public speeches or on the media. The Parliament, the Higher Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption, and the Cour of Accounts do not exercise their constitutional rights of control over the armed forces (5).

There is little evidence of commitment from chiefs and ministers with regards to anti-corruption within the military and security sectors. There is no evidence to show that anti-corruption is part of public talking points for chiefs and ministers, with explicit reference to corruption and management of corruption risks through interviews with journalists and CSOs, and statements at events and conferences. According to GAN 2016, “Corruption is pervasive in all sectors of the economy and government… Foreign donors have pushed the government to pass new anti-corruption legislation in 2015″ (2). Although corruption is criminalized under the Penal Code, however, weak enforcement of these laws, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult…The police and gendarmerie are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in Burkina Faso. Investigations of corrupt practices and the abuse of the police are carried out by the gendarmerie, but results of these investigations are not always made public….. however, only between 1-15% of households report having paid a bribe to the police” (2)

According to the DoS (2017), “use of excessive force, corruption, a climate of impunity, and lack of training contributed to police ineffectiveness… The government announced investigations in progress, but as of September 20, none had led to prosecution.inadequate resources also impeded police effectiveness…NGOs reported pervasive corruption in… the gendarmerie, national police, municipal police. The local NGO Anticorruption National Network (REN-LAC) categorized the municipal police as the most corrupt government sector. They reported a lack of political will to fight corruption, stating the government rarely imposed sanctions against prominent government figures (3). However, the military disciplinary code focuses on integrity and is among the core shared values in the armed forces (5), (6), (7). Integrity is taught at military training centres. One key reasons for being fired in the defence sector remains offences committed in violation of military doctrine. Burkina Faso’s armed forces have been strict on this matter as they consider discipline to be the strength of the armed forces. Training in communication, integrity and corruption mostly takes places at professional workshops (1). For most personnel, integrity is something embedded from when they signed up to serve in the armed forces and they fear breaking military discipline (4). However, at the 2018 Council of Administration of the Ministry of Defence, the speech focused on ethics and integrity (1), (8). According to UNODC 2017, “from 22 to 23 March 2017, a national workshop on “Police, Gendarmerie and Customs: integrity and combating corruption” was organized in Ouagadougou, in cooperation with the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption… This will allow for the development of more realistic and pertinent strategies” (1).

There is little evidence of commitment from unit commanders and leaders with regards to anti-corruption within the military and security sectors. There is no evidence to show that anti-corruption is part of public talking points for chiefs and ministers, with explicit reference to corruption and management of corruption risks through interviews with journalists and CSOs, and statements at events and conferences. According to GAN 2016, “Corruption is pervasive in all sectors of the economy and government… Foreign donors have pushed the government to pass new anti-corruption legislation in 2015″ (2). Although corruption is criminalized under the Penal Code, however, weak enforcement of these laws, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult…The police and gendarmerie are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in Burkina Faso. Investigations of corrupt practices and the abuse of the police are carried out by the gendarmerie, but results of these investigations are not always made public….. however, only between 1-15% of households report having paid a bribe to the police” (2)

According to the DoS (2017), “use of excessive force, corruption, a climate of impunity, and lack of training contributed to police ineffectiveness… The government announced investigations in progress, but as of September 20, none had led to prosecution.inadequate resources also impeded police effectiveness…NGOs reported pervasive corruption in… the gendarmerie, national police, municipal police. The local NGO Anticorruption National Network (REN-LAC) categorized the municipal police as the most corrupt government sector. They reported a lack of political will to fight corruption, stating the government rarely imposed sanctions against prominent government figures (3). The military disciplinary code focuses on integrity and is among the core shared values in the armed forces (5), (6), (7). Integrity is taught at military training centres. One key reasons for being fired in the defence sector remains offences committed in violation of military doctrine. Burkina Faso’s armed forces have been strict on this matter as they consider discipline to be the strength of the armed forces. Training in communication, integrity and corruption mostly takes places at professional workshops (1). For most personnel, integrity is something embedded from when they signed up to serve in the armed forces and they fear breaking military discipline (4). However, at the 2018 Council of Administration of the Ministry of Defence, the speech focused on ethics and integrity (1), (8). According to UNODC 2017, “from 22 to 23 March 2017, a national workshop on “Police, Gendarmerie and Customs: integrity and combating corruption” was organized in Ouagadougou, in cooperation with the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption… This will allow for the development of more realistic and pertinent strategies” (1).

There is no evidence of any internal communications from senior members of the defence and security establishment. Due to the lack of transparency and accountability regarding issues of defence and security in Cameroon (Constitution, Article 35) [4], any internal communications, if they do exist, would not likely be made public. In addition, the lack of known proactive measures to fight corruption within the defence and security establishments, the prevalence of corruption across all aspects of Cameroonian society [1] [2], and the lack of transparency and accountability regarding wrongdoing and corruption by members of the security forces [3], suggest that there is unlikely to be an internal commitment to integrity and anti-corruption by the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs or the ministry as an institution.

The Minister of Defence has made several pronouncements on cases relating to corruption within the defence systems. Corrupt military officers have been disciplined and some of the sanctions broadcast on the National Radio and Television station. The Director of Communication of the Ministry of Defence has also made pronouncements concerning corrupt security officers. [1] Addressing military officers in 2015, the former Minister of Defence Edgard Alain Mebe Ngo’o stated that military officers who had embezzled the allowances of military personnel assigned to fight Boko Haram would be tried for embezzlement: “The Defence Minister insisted on good governance to guide the actions of soldiers on the field to enable them effectively to carry out war operations. The military leaders on the war front should lead by example: ‘I state clearly that depriving troops and soldiers of their rights in times of war is an act of treason that will lead the perpetrators to be judged in military courts,’ Mebe Ngo’o said” [2]. As noted in 33B, Mebe Ngo’o has been charged with allegations of corruption and embezzlement himself and so these communications should be taken as superficial.

There is no evidence of senior military officers denouncing corruption in the military and Ministry of Defence openly. The former Minister of Defence did in 2015 denounce corruption in relation to security officers embezzling the allowances of military personnel assigned to fight Boko Haram who would be tried for embezzlement (Cameroun Web, 2015) [1], but no senior military officers denounced such acts.

The only item that was published in the MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 3) that could be considered to address general corruption issues at MoD institutions was a piece published in January 2017 reporting on the findings by Transparency International’s GI Index 2015. However, the author (Jean-Francois Curtis) is not a chief/minister at MoD (1). Most of the internal communications regarding anti-corruption issues seem to have involved anti-racketeering or small arms issues–not broad-based anti-corruption initiatives. There is little evidence of a more pro-active general engagement at the top level of officers, including the minister of defence, based on the MoD internal communications. The MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 1) from June 2016 had two pieces on efforts to end racketeering at police roadblocks. Since operation “Renard” was deployed in 2012, more than 1,000 weapons have been seized and 18 roadblocks have been dismantled. This is an example of internal communication on anti-racketeering in an MoD internal publication, whose publication director is the minister of defence himself (2).

The MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 2) from October 2016, dedicated to the Military Programming Act (Loi de Programmation Militaire) and national security issues, reported on a communications platform linking the National Commission to combat Small Arms (ComNat-ALPC) with the Gendarmerie Nationale as a way to exchange information on the trafficking in small arms. The chief of staff representing the then minister of defence made statements regarding the need to improve the traceability of small arms (3):

“As part of the implementation of its National Action Plan to Combat the Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons, the National Commission the fight against small arms and light weapons (ComNat-Alpc), undertook to set up a system of interconnection between squadrons of the Gendarmerie Nationale and the Armies of Côte d’Ivoire, in accordance with the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons…Jean-Paul Malan, Chief of Staff, representing the Minister to the President of the Republic, in charge of Defense, welcomed this operation which allows the registration and management of arms movements” (3).

The MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 2) from October 2016 carried a piece on the closure of illicit gold-mining operations. During a visit to a clandestine gold-mining operation in the district of Buyo (Western Region) on July 17, 2016, then Minister of Defence Alain Richard Donwahi declared the illicit mining operation officially closed. But he failed to mention the involvement of members of the armed forces in this type of operation, which is a widespread corruption issue at the MoD (4).

The recent ministers of defence and army chiefs of staff have publicly committed to a general anti-corruption agenda since the end of the post-election crisis of 2010-2011. But due to political alliances and the threat of soldier mutinies, such commitments are made only indirectly at public events. The ministers of defence and army chiefs of staff routinely use the codeword of “discipline” to address values or codes of military conduct, but that they fail to address specific incidents of corruption involving local zone commanders known as COMZONES due to the political liabilities. The current Defence Minister Hamed Bakayoko acknowledged the image problem of the armed forces and addressed the reforms underway to help restore its “tarnished image” by referring to “discipline” and “mentality changers” (Ivorian Press Agency (AIP) on 2 Nov. 2018) (1).

There have also been public communiqués regarding disciplinary issues in the armed forces since the soldiers’ mutiny of January 2017 in Bouaké and other towns, in which soldiers rebelled to demand wage increases and upgrades to barracks infrastructure. The then Minister of Defence Alain Richard Donwahi announced an agreement, as long as “discipline” was maintained (2). The most recent event illustrating Minister of Defence Hamed Bakayoko’s public commitment to root out corruption at MoD is from November 5, 2018. The APA source describes his firing of 48 soldiers in 2017-2018. According to the source, the Minister supports draft legislation that would impose administrative sanctions on members of the military (3). With the Military Programming Act (Loi de Programmation Militaire, LPM) through 2020, the MoD can be said to be going through a reform process. The LPM contains several integrity commitments, but few top officials address these issues at public events directly and explicitly.

There is a low level of public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity issues by unit commanders and less senior military leaders. As in 34B, such commitments are expressed indirectly and only occasionally in public statements, and often prefer the usage of the codeword of “discipline” instead of “corruption”. In May 2017, a former military commander calling himself Officer Zinzin (Adjutant Zinzin) revealed the backstories behind the soldier mutinies in Bouaké and the discovery of a weapons cache at the home of Soul to Soul, the Protocol Director of NA President Guillaume Soro. But the revelations of purported corruption were made under a pseudonym (1).

In January 2018, the Chief of Staff of the Ivorian Armed Forces, General Sékou Toure, promised that the military would cease being problematic for the government during a ceremony in honour of President Ouattara. During his speech, General Toure stated that his goal was to restore the “tarnished image of the Armed Forces” (2). “In 2017, 230 soldiers and gendarmes were laid off for misconduct, desertion and other breaches of discipline, according to a report by the Chief of Staff. In 2018, I promise to restore the tarnished image of the army,” promised General Sekou Toure” (2). Whenever a unit commander or a junior member of the military establishment publicly denounce corruption, it is done anonymously.

According to our sources, there are no internal communications of any type with regards to corruption or corruption activities (1), (2), (3). There is no evidence of meetings or any form of internal communication about the sector’s commitment to fighting corruption.

Examining tens of news pieces and press releases going a year back on the official website of the MoD, there was no mention whatsoever of anti-corruption, and there was not a single communication about the commitment integrity (1). The same also applies to the Facebook page of the Armed Forces spokesperson (2). However, there have been some statements about countering the smuggling of drugs and weapons (3). This was confirmed by our interview sources (4), (5), (6).

After listening to some recent speeches by defence leaders addressing other officers (e.g. graduation ceremonies), anti-corruption issues were mentioned, though most of the speeches were about counter-terrorism efforts (1), (2). Other than these examples, there is no mention of issues of transparency, anti-corruption and integrity in the defence sector on any of the armed forces’ official platforms. According to our sources, there are no statements with regards to corruption. The MoD does not see corruption as strategic risk despite the clear evidence of widespread corruption within the army (3), (4), (5).

The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has shown commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures. In the Estonian Republic Basic Security Policy Act, the ministry has acknowledged that organised crime, as well as corruption, is one of the major security risks in the world. Corruption damages the country’s reputation and threatens its stability in many ways, in the private as well as the public sector. Reducing corruption is listed as one of the priorities in the Policy Act. [1] The Ministry has also taken proactive measures to prevent corruption. All of Estonia’s ministries (including MOF) have joined the governmental anti-corruption program. [2] Part of the reason why the Centre for Defence Investment was established in 2017 was to reduce the risk of corruption. [3] This was initiated by the Minister of Defence, who emphasised that the new institution would make defence procurement procedures more transparent and ensure they are correctly followed.
In the Defence Forces, the Ethics Code of the Estonian Defence Forces [4] is approved by the Commander of the Defence Forces, even though studies show that the Code of Ethics is not always implemented evenly by the officers. [5] There are difficulties in understanding the code and therefore also in following it, as shown by the study conducted at the Estonian National Defence College.

When the Commander of the Estonian Defence Forces or the Minister of Defence have mentioned corruption in their statements or interviews, the topic has mostly been about other, developing countries. [1] They have spoken about the importance of tackling corruption in this context. [2] The communication by the top management of Estonia’s defence sector often also includes comments on corruption-related incidents and issues that have happened in Estonia. For example, the former Commander of the Estonian Defence Forces mentioned corruption in relation to the low participation in conscription. The Defence Minister mentioned corruption in connection to a specific case. [3]
As interviewees point out, Estonia’s defence sector is quite exclusive and secretive. The public does not request information about corruption in the defence sector and therefore, the top management does not openly speak about it. All in all, corruption is not a prevalent topic discussed in relation to the defence sector. [4,5]

There have been some statements and publications about the importance of shared values in the military organisation that have involved senior armed forces officers. [1] While senior staff in the defence sector have not written extensively about values and conduct, there are nevertheless some examples. [2] It can be concluded that staff recognises that values and attitudes are an important basis for military organisations, even though messages are neither coordinated, regular nor expressed often.

Strong commitment to anti-corruption and integrity is formulated in the Minister’s Directives 2018 which is communicated internally and externally based on the Communication Strategy 2017-2020 [1, 2]. BI issues are communicated using tools of internal communication such as newspaper “Georgian Army,” PPT Presentations and Q&A [3, 4]. Also, top management of MoD and General Staff are addressing integrity issues in their speeches as part of the Defence Institute Building School (DIBS) Building Integrity (BI) training courses conducted for military personnel. For example, please see information about the security sector oversight program, which is conducted by DIBS in cooperation with NATO’s Building Integrity Program [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The goal of the program is to inform defence personnel about corruption risks and prevention mechanisms [10]. In 2015, the deputy head of the Ministry of Defence addressed the participants (commanders) on anti-corruption and BI during their courses [11]. In 2018, the minister of defence gave a speech at the parliament about corruption and the idea of amending the Law of Procurement as a way to avoid corruption [12]. According to the government reviewer, more activities were undertaken that confirm the strong dedication of Chiefs/Minister through proactive communication on anti-corruption measures, and regular communications about integrity from top level officers in service publications [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].

The MoD’s and General Staff leadership’s strong commitment to integrity issues are demonstrated in existing documents [1, 2] and public events such as meetings with NGOs and international organisations, media comments and parliamentary meetings, training and conferences [3, 4, 5]. However, concrete actions, results and mechanisms are not shown.

Some commitments to building integrity (BI) issues by senior military staff are demonstrated in newspapers and some documents and conferences [1]. These are general statements underlining the importance of BI. There is no detailed information or regular communication tools and coverage used by the senior military members of the General Staff or unit commanders to share their commitment, mechanisms, results, development or actions connected to ensuring integrity [2, 3, 4].

According to the government reviewer, unit leaders at the tactical level occasionally conduct meetings outlining planned activities as well as emphasizing key values in the Defence Forces, including the importance of integrity at service. However, it is not for media coverage. At the same time, MOD has established PAO positions to further stress the importance of public communications from military servicemen on key defence reforms, including integrity measures, therefore in the coming future new channels will further articulate the issue for the public and men and women in uniforms. This information could not be verified.

There is a commitment by the Ministry of Defence to enhance anti-corruption measures and build integrity in the MOD. However, if internal communications are issued, these are not made publicly available; either on the MOD’s webpage or in the main Ghanaian newspapers such as Modern Ghana, Myjoyonline, GhanaWeb, Ghana News Agency, Graphic Online (1). There are general statements on new anti-corruption initiatives, but not many public comments. There is no evidence of internal communications around the issue.

The MOD’s commitment is more often demonstrated during public interventions and statements by the minister and senior staff, as well as during events and conferences. For instance, in August 2017 during the presentation of the Entity Tender Committee, established in compliance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) (1), the Defence Minister, Dominic Nitiwul announced the online publication of the MOD’s tender processes (except for the procurement of confidential items) to improve the transparency of the procurement activities (2). On the same day, he encouraged the GAF to perform their role effectively and free from corruption stating, “the public know the GAF as being disciplined, and they will not forgive us for any infractions in the implementation of bad procurement and corrupt practices”.

The minister took part in the event “Winning the fight against corruption: a sustainable path to Africa’s transformation” organised to celebrate the 55th anniversary of the formation of the African Union (AU) in May 2018 (3).

In May 2018 the MOD organised, in partnership with the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), an open forum for personnel to improve civic participation in the defence sector. During the event, the commitment to fighting corruption was reiterated (4).

Sporadic statements from senior armed forces officers mostly refer to the promotion of self-discipline, integrity, and professionalism among the Armed Forces personnel rather than specifically addressing corruption risks. For instance, in June 2018 Brigadier-General Francis Ofori stressed the need to maintain self-discipline to build and consolidate public confidence in the GAF (1). Also in June, Brigadier-General Mohammed Aryee speaking at a military parade military stressed the need of preserving the image of the Armed Forces with “discipline” and “self-sacrifice” (2), (3), (4), (5).

There is a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Defence Ministry (MoD) and senior members of the armed forces, but it may not be communicated directly by officers. Seemingly the commitment is driven by the willingness to meet the expectations of the key allies. Therefore, as highlighted in other questions, integrity reports are shallow and do not contain any threat analyses or examples of corruption cases. The number of available internal communications relating to the integrity or anti-corruption measures for the public is extremely low. The Journal of the Ministry of Defence contains instructions by the previous defence minister regarding the implementation of different integrity-related processes [1]. Speeches where top officials mentioned the importance of transparency have been found through the search engines. Active personnel suggested there is not even meaningful internal communication document on anti-corruption and integrity [2, 3, 4].

Recently, there has not been a single occasion when the minister or the chief of defence or the service chiefs have publicly mentioned the relevance or importance of anti-corruption measures [1].

Through interviews sources with close relations to unit commanders, or recently serving in similar leadership position suggested they had no responsibility to include integrity or anti-corruption elements into their training and they had limited knowledge on the governmental efforts [1, 2, 3]. Similarly, no information, interview, article on unit commanders mentioning the importance of anti-corruption efforts were found.

Public endorsements of the fight against corruption, as declared by Al Abadi, are widely heard throughout the ministerial spectrum. There is no evidence; however, of an internal willingness to execute change and institute new processes. No documents in which concrete plans for rooting out defence corruption, particularly kickbacks and bribes which plague ministries of security and defence, are available online (1).

Officials regularly appear on local television platforms, ministerial addresses and ceremonies to discuss or expose corruption in an attempt, often, as a former army officer told TI, “to extricate themselves” (1). Head of Iraq’s outgoing parliamentary security and defence committee, Zamili mentioned that ‘180’ security-related corruption offences/files were handed to the CoI (2). The outcome of these investigations remains unclear. There are similar verbal commitments in 2019 from the existing Minister of Defence Najah al Shammari (3). What is common across both administrations are news items in which an undisclosed number of officers and senior leaders are referred to court on undisclosed charges without the verdict or outcome being made public in the aftermath of court proceedings. A former military officer interviewed for the assessment contends that “verbal commitment and polished public speeches from officers and ministers are politically motivated which key ministries simply parrot” (1).
Iraq’s war on corruption centres around verbal commitments voiced by the outgoing prime minister, Haider al Abadi (4), (5). The focus has been on restoring funds which officials have squandered through fake construction deals, fake contracts, or smuggled illegally to offshore havens (4), (5). Defence corruption took a back seat as a matter of priority within the PM-led anti-corruption scheme. There have been no direct publications or statements from defence officials. While cases of defence corruption do receive wide media attention in the local and international press, defence chiefs and ministers have not pledged commitment towards drafting an official anti-corruption law that applies to defence majors. A senior government official told Niqash (6) that senior positions grant “contracts affiliated to his party. Most … parties do this. That’s why no one would complain about corruption in federal ministries … then other politicians will complain about them” (6). Gathered evidence points to a mismatch between rhetoric and results, as a result of uncompetitive security actors and a general lack of willingness to eradicate corruption.

Across Iraqi state media, few unit commanders and leaders appear on TV with public comments. In cases where they do appear, victories against ISG are discussed as opposed to the war on domestic corruption. The MoD’s inspector general recently praised the joint efforts to tackle corruption, between GIs and the PMO (1), and ongoing workshops to address military culture and skill gaps.

There is very little internal communication or efforts to support commitment to anti-corruption. Usually, such communications come with external efforts to train officers on anti-corruption and integrity measures [1,2].

Commitment to countering corruption is publicly stated – though perhaps not strongly. There are many examples of Chiefs and Ministers speaking about anti-corruption measures being on the list of their priorities, without specifying these measures or strategies. The Prime Minister, acting as Defence Minister as well, often makes statements about the importance of countering-corruption and the Government’s dedication to it [1, 2]. In official statements, the King of Jordan Abdullah II, who is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, also expresses his dedication and desire to end corruption in the country [3, 4, 5]. These statements fail to mention specific integrity measures and management of risk.

Other than public statements and commitments to countering corruption made by very senior officials associated with the defence sector, including those by the King and the Prime Minister [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], there are many instances of statements from unit commanders and leaders. These statements are usually presented at international and regional events.

There is no information to ascertain whether the Minister of Defence and the Commander of the Kosovo Security Forces show internal commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures. However, when appointed, the Minister of Defence confirmed his commitment to fulfil the duties and projects outlined by the Ministry of Defence [1]. The Integrity Plan of the Ministry of Defence for 2019-2022 contains a short introduction from the Minister stating that the main objectives of the Ministry of Defence and the Security Forces are to promote good governance and to implement the principles of integrity, transparency and accountability in line with international norms and practices [2]. In his foreword, the Minister emphasised that the Integrity Plan is a documented process for assessing the level of sensitivity within the Ministry of Defence and the Security Forces, as well as its exposure to unethical and corrupt practices [2]. Furthermore, the Minister states that the Integrity Plan aims to strengthen the integrity and anti-corruption culture through identifying risks, planning, and implementing appropriate measures, and through establishing an overall anti-corruption system which would result in enforcing the rule of law and enhancing public trust in national defence institutions [2]. The Minister is therefore clearly committed to reducing and eliminating potential corruption risks in the institution [3].

According to the government reviewer, there is a clear commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Ministry of Defense, as stated by the Minister of Defense and COMFSK [3]. Internal engagement is demonstrated through proactive anti-corruption measures and regular communications on integrity by officials/officers at all levels and with all forms of communication. There is a consistency of placing the message for integrity, identifying and addressing possible findings and irregularities and providing evidence that the integrity system is being implemented [4] in periodic reports.

There is no information to ascertain whether the Minister of Defence and the Commander of the Kosovo Security Forces show public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures. Several statements have been made by the Minister and General Secretary of Defence, for instance for the launch of the Integrity Plan (2019-2022) in mid-July 2019 [1].
This being said, the Minister of Defence (Mr. Rrustem Berisha) and the former Deputy Minister of Defence (Mr. Agim Çeku) have been charged with being involved in manipulating the registration process of the 1999 war veterans of the Kosovo Liberation Army [2]. Media has reported that the US Embassy in Kosovo is not communicating to either senior officials due to this charge against them [3]. Mr. Çeku, was dismissed and submitted his resignation in June 2019, following the call from the current ruling party to dismiss all public officials of the Democratic Party of Kosovo who are under investigation for corruption or nepotism [4, 5]

Commitment is evidenced predominantly in the Integrity Plan, however there is some committment through public statetements. Unit commanders are committed to the Integrity Plan (2019-2022) of the Ministry of Defence, which strengthens integrity and anti-corruption culture within the Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Security Forces by identifying, analysing and assessing risks, as well as by addressing these through adequate measures and actions [1]. The Integrity Plan is based on the following principles or commitments to integrity: i) necessity to define clear objectives for building integrity; ii) necessity to establish an institutionalised environment based on control and accountability; and iii) recognition of integrity as an inherent part of good governance within the Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Security Forces [1]. Beyond this, the Code of Ethics from Feb 2019 for the Kosovo Security Forces e references commitments of senior armed officers as well as of leaders within the Security Forces [2]. For example, the Code of Ethics, stipulates that all Security Forces commanders are responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of their members [3]. With regards to the implementation of the Code of Ethics, the leaders of the Security Forces are responsible for checking that rules are implemented and that relevant disciplinary procedures are followed up in case of violations [4].

The heads of security agencies in Kuwait have made a commitment to anti-corruption measures, but these ministries do not regularly communicate that to officers, former and current officials, activists and an analyst said (1,2,3).

They just have ordered their employees to hand over to the ACA their financial disclosures, and to accept some of the recommendations of the CSC regarding their pay structure.

The changes are, however, minor, they said. They simply concern formalizing the job description of some employees and asking employees to bring in their degrees to make sure they have the credentials they claimed to have when they were hired. Some of those who lied have had their pay reduced as a result, but there are no reliable estimates on the matter.

The security agencies have allowed the ACA to hold workshops and lecture officers on anti-corruption methods since the body was formed in 2016, officials said (4,5,6). The SAB and the CSC have always been allowed to lecture officers as well about more newer methods of administration and fighting corruption, they added.

High-ranking security and defence officials do not discuss corruption in their institutions explicitly or clearly. They rarely give press interviews and they do not ususally give public speeches.

ACA and SAB officials do routinely speak to the media about finding corruption in all Government ministries. The security agencies are not given special attention in this campaign, officials and activists said (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

The closest thing to a direct statement of commitment from the Defence Minister came in April 2018, when the state news agency KUNA announced that the Minister had met Johann Graf Lambsdorff, a German anti-corruption expert (7). The minister also told reports in February 2018 that most of the questions that the Parliament had about the aforementioned Caracal deal were valid and that he will cooperate with them (8).

There are very few statements from the security agencies discussing the issue of corruption, but there are many statements about integrity as one of the core values of their work. However, these statements lack depth and regularity. They are usually delivered through service publications and occasionally at unit parades and other military or police ceremonies, officials said (1, 2 and 3).

The May 2012 “Building integrity self-assessment: Peer Review Report” on Latvia made several recommendations [1] which the Ministry of Defence implemented between 2014 and 2018. The MOD included these measures in the Anti-Corruption Action Plan of the Ministry. Internal communication about anti-corruption efforts in the ministry and military is sporadic. For instance, the e-magazine for the military, www.sargs.lv, does not appraoach corruption in a comprehensive manner. [2]

According to the government reviewer, the initial training of young employees includes issues of conflict of interest and anti-corruption which is in line with the rules on the agenda. Employees at the State Administration School regularly attend courses related to the prevention of conflict of interest in the activities of public officials. In the annual assessment of staff, one of the components of the assessment is the “ethical” competence, which also indirectly contains the abovementioned issues. The rules of the agenda prescribe that the employee shall consult the Code of Conduct on the portal of the Ministry of Defence, which determines the principles of ethics, the rights, duties, responsibilities and standards of ethical behaviour, and issues related to the prevention of conflict of interest, the assessment of corruption risks, the form of expression and the reduction of corruption. As well as the possibility for the employee to prevent a conflict of interest from occurring.

Overall, the popularity of the National Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence is high, especially when compared to other state administration institutions. In the public eye, these institutions are seen as having integrity and being honest. Despite this, no tradition of strongly standing against corruption has been recorded since the tenure of Minister Imants Lieģis (2009-2010). In 2009, the current minister Raimonds Bergmanis, held the position of adviser to the State Secretary of the Ministry of Defense with contractual work at the Riga Municipal Police, as well as the post of Senior Official of the Ministry of Defence’s Youth Military Division with the position of member of the Board of the Latvian Olympic Club and co-director of a firm, without obtaining written permission. He, therefore, violated the norms of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials”. [2] From November 2014 to July 2015, Bergmanis was a deputy chairman of the Defense, Home Affairs and Corruption Prevention Committee at the Saeima. [3] Besides these entries, no particular link between the Ministry’s officials and corruption/anti-corrutpion topics can be found. This means that the Ministry has almost no commmunication strategy to explain its anti-corruption efforts vis-a-vis the broader public.

According to the government reviewer, however, citizens have access to information and communication opportunities with the Ministry, that helps prevent the risks of corruption. Updated information on participation opportunities, topical issues, different communication options is available on the AM website. Information is regularly published in the public area, in which the defence system’s leading officials indicate significant improvements in corruption risk mitigation measures [4,5,6,7,8,9,10].

There is no evidence indicating that unit commanders and leaders commit to anti-corruption and integrity measures. However, unit commanders and leaders in their communication randomly refer to the framework documents prescribing the military discipline of soldiers and national guardsment, and the procedures providing it. [1] According to the government reviewer, individual unit commanders shall not make public statements, but regularly exchange information with soldiers of their unit on the risks of mounting corruption. This information could not be verified.

There is a commitment to increase transparency and integrity measures by the LAF, demonstrated by internal measures taken place (1). However, the LAF does not often publicize its internal implemented measures (2). For example, the military college’s corruption case in 2017 is one of the publicized cases the LAF investigated (3). Furthermore, the LAF Commander General Joseph Aoun emphasized the meritocracy for the new cadets accepted in the military college in 2017 (4).

Though the LAF does have strict anti-corruption training (1), it has publically expressed its commitment (2) through interviews with CSOs and statements at events and conferences (3). Top-level officers reference and clarify integrity and internal measures in the management of corruption risks (3). For example, the LAF representative at a workshop with LTA and TI UK on anti-corruption reaffirmed the LAF’s commitment to anti-corruption and spoke about the internal measures that the LAF adopts (4). A source confirmed these LAF’s activities and discipline (3). Furthermore, Lebanon’s President Micheal Aoun praised the LAF’s efforts, including combating corruption (5).

Statements by senior military personnel representing the LAF commander are not made often (1). However, a few of the public statement include LAF’s commitment to combatting corruption, integrity, good governance, and transparency concerning international standards (2). On the other hand, publications by senior active military personnel addressing corruption were found on this subject (1), (3), (4).

According to LAF’s regulations, no unit commander has the right to express personal thoughts unless permitted by commandment (5). So any representative of the LAF commander stating the LAF’s commitment to anti-corruption and transparency is saying the official position of the LAF, as their personal opinions are not allowed (6).

The Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs and other members of the National Security System (NSS) clearly declare commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures through the national security system anti-corruption program [1]. Internal commitment is demonstrated by organising seminars for NSS personnel related to corruption issues [2]. There is a department responsible for corruption prevention, entitled General Inspection [3]. However, some of the actions are still externally driven.
Since 2016 when the procurement scandal broke out in the defence sector in relation to the items purchased eight times higher than the market price (the so-called “golden spoons”), and after Lithuania increased the financing of the defence sector to meet the NATO requirement of 2 percent of GDP to be spent on defence, there has been much more attention paid to anti-corruption measures within the defence sector. For instance, the overseeing anti-corruption body – the Special Investigation Service, which is also tasked by the Parliament – made several anti-corruption assessments [4], requiring the Ministry of Defence to have a special section on the website for corruption prevention only; special staff responsible for anti-corruption, requiring training to be arranged, and requiring the procurement to be more stringent as well as transparent. The new anti-corruption programme and the action plan for the defence sector for 2017-2021 [5] contain a number of measures dedicated to anti-corruption, and already several reforms have started in the procurement field of the defence sector. For instance, a central procurement body has been established, as has the Defence Resource Agency (which started to operate in January 2018), and steps have been taken important to increase transparency and effectiveness in procurement [6]. Despite all of these developments, many actions are still externally driven; the military is silent about corruption [7] and anti-corruption training is still not systematic as seen from the website of the Ministry of Defence. The minister is silent about the issue of corruption is his speeches or media interviews. More can and needs to be done with regards to internal communication.

Ministry of Defence officials publicly commit to tackling corruption by providing information on the institutional website, publishing an anticorruption program and plan, and also by discussing papers relating to the defence strategy through anticorruption seminars [1,2,3]. The new Head of the Centralised Procurement Agency for the defence sector often mentions transparency and anti-corruption in his interviews [4]. Despite these developments, many of the actions are still driven by external actors, and the military is silent about corruption [5] and anti-corruption training is still not systematic, as indicated by the Ministry of Defence website. The minister is silent about the issue of corruption is his speeches or media interviews.

Ministry of Defence officials publicly commit to tackling corruption by providing information on the institutional website, publishing an anticorruption program and plan, and also by discussing papers relating to the defence strategy through anticorruption seminars [1,2,3]. Many of the actions are still driven by external actors, and the military is silent about corruption [5] and anti-corruption training is still not systematic, as indicated by the Ministry of Defence website. The minister is silent about the issue of corruption is his speeches or media interviews.

The assessor has found no evidence online that the Ministry of Defence issues internal communications or has adopted clear commitments to tackle corruption within the defence sector [3,4]. The Ministry of Defence does not have its own website, but the armed forces (FAMa) do [1]. Similarly, there are no reports online of the former head of the armed forces, Didier Dacko, who is now the commander of the G5 Sahel Force, referencing the need to reduce corruption in any of his public engagements [2].
However, shortly after succeeding Dacko, the armed forces’ current General Chief of Staff, M’Bemba Moussa Keïta, delivered a speech to Malian troops at bases in Bamako and Kati in which he emphasised the need for soldiers to uphold the army’s values, albeit in vague terms.⁵ He called on all individuals to be mindful of presenting a positive image of the FAMa – both externally and internally – and warned that he would impose penalties for misconduct.⁵ He also underlined that he would ensure that the current recruitment programme would be conducted in a transparent manner.⁵

President IBK, who is also head of the armed forces, promoted 2014, his first full calendar year in office, as ‘the year against corruption’ [2,3]. The government organised a symposium with civil society to discuss solutions in the ‘fight against corruption’ (the January 2014 Forum sur la Corruption et la Délinquance Financière).[2] Yet, 2014 turned into the most damning year for IBK in terms of corruption because of the scandal concerning the 40 billion CFA overspend on a new presidential jet. [1,4] The deal prompted the IMF to suspend aid to the country and provoked an investigation by Mali’s national audit body, as well as a more general assessment by the IMF.[1,4] The scandal highlighted the superficial nature of the president’s public pronouncements.
Since IBK became president in 2013, there have been five different Ministers of Defence: Soumeylou Boubèye Maïga, Ba N’Dao, Tiéman Hubert Coulibaly, Abdoulaye Idrissa Maïga and Tiéna Coulibaly. Searches of online sources have revealed little evidence of the defence ministry or representatives of the ministry making public commitments to combat corruption. Indeed, the second of these defence ministers, Colonel Major Ba N’Dao, was removed from his post in late 2014. He was dismissed shortly after he was directly implicated in the “dubious” award of a public tender for military equipment, worth 20 billion CFA.[5] The contract was awarded in a manner that contravened the existing legal standards for issuing public tenders.[5] Local media outlets alleged that the deal contained a kickback of approximately 4 billion CFA for several “high placed individuals” involved in the awarding of the contract.[5] The assessor has not found more recent evidence.

The one exception in this series is the current Minister of Defence, Tiéna Coulibaly, who was appointed in April 2017. Within a month of his arrival at the MDAC, Coulibaly publicly determined that the army’s main weakness is in recruitment. He said that during the recruitment process, various ministers, MPs and officers present their own lists as to who should be selected.[6] Rather than recruiting soldiers on merit, the current process favours those who are well-connected. As a result, these new soldiers, recruited without competition and “for whom strings have been pulled”, are unfit for fighting because they are simply in the armed forces to draw a salary.[6] Coulibaly has pledged to ensure that from now on soldiers are recruited through a fair and competitive process.[6]

Searches of online sources have not found any evidence of military commanders making public commitments to combat corruption.[1] There is also no mention of tackling corruption as an institutional goal on the FAMa website. Well-informed sources in Bamako told the assessor that it is precisely at this level where the resistance to change and greater transparency is strongest.⁹ ¹⁰
A defence attaché at a foreign embassy in Bamako said that those at the very top of the armed forces, such as the current Chief of the Defence Staff, General Keita, know what needs to be done to reduce corruption and are genuinely committed to achieving this. [2,3] However, the source said that an electronic payments system, for example, would reveal how many soldiers each commander has under their authority and thus curb the opportunities for commanders to pocket the salaries of non-existent, deceased or retired soldiers.[3] Meanwhile, a security governance official said that the current system is “a golden egg for some commanders” and so there is a lot of resistance to the idea of an electronic system from Keita’s subordinates.[4]
Furthermore, a security expert working closely with the Malian armed forces said he was unaware of any unit commander making a public statement about tackling corruption.[5]

The Ministry adopted the Integrity Plan and reports on its implementation, [1][2] in line with legal obligations. [3] However, the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence and Single Service Chiefs never publicly committed to anti-corruption and integrity measures. [3][4][5][6][7][8] According to insiders, the fight against corruption is not communicated as an issue of importance within defence. [9]

Almost no public commitment by the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, or Single Service Chiefs or the Ministry as an institution to fight against corruption has been reported by media outlets [1][2][3][4][5] or noted by NGO representatives. [6]

On example: “Montenegro continuously contributes to the core values of the Alliance and expresses its commitment to the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which are the key values of building the trustworthy relations with international partners and Allies. One of our lines of efforts towards these objectives is the active cooperation with both regional and international partners, such as CIDS, and participation in NATO Building Integrity Programme. This program promotes good practice and provides practical tools to help NATO member states and partners build integrity and promote transparency in order to reduce the risk of corruption in the defence and security sector. Since CIDS is the NATO Department Head for this discipline, it is a privilege to have the permanent representation of CIDS here in Montenegro and we have prepared an ambitious plan of activities with CIDS for the next two years.“ (paragraph 4 of the Opening remarks addressed by Mr. Ivica Ivanović, former Director General for Defence Policy and Planning Directorate, “Regional conference marking the formal implementation of the Norwegian Grant Agreement on Building Integrity in the Western Balkans”, 15 May 2019, Hotel Avala, Budva, Montenegro) [7]

Aside from the Integrity Plan and the reports on its implementation, [1][2] which the Ministry of Defence adopted like all other public institutions in compliance with the Law on Prevention of Corruption, [3] there has been only one public statement by senior ministry staff about values and conduct [4][5][6][7][8]

There is no defence minister in Morocco, defence matters being directly overseen by the King. Abdellatif Loudiyi has been serving as the delegate minister (secretary of state) to the Prime Minister in charge of the administration of national defence since 2010 upon the King’s orders, keeping his position throughout various governments (1) (2).

No evidence was found of internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by Mr Loudiyi or the King on the website of the Ministry of Communication (which acts as the government and the King’s spokesperson). In the absence of a website dedicated to the Moroccan armed forces (or any government support or media offering official information about the Moroccan armed forces), the website of the Ministry of Communication was also screened for internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by the Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs or the ministry as an institution. No evidence of such communication was found (3).

No evidence of internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption measures made by Ministry of Defence or armed forces senior officials was found in the Moroccan and international press (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12).

This lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of evidence found on the website of Transparency Maroc and statements by the latter denouncing the lack of concrete anti-corruption policies implemented by the Moroccan authorities lead to the conclusion that there is no clear and detailed anti-corruption commitment at the internal level in the Moroccan armed forces. It was neither possible to talk to members of the Moroccan armed forces nor to access military gazettes and internal magazines (13) (14) (15).

There is no defence minister in Morocco, defence matters being directly overseen by the King. Abdellatif Loudiyi has been serving as the delegate minister (secretary of state) to the Prime Minister in charge of the administration of national defence since 2010 upon the King’s orders, keeping his position throughout various governments (1)(2).

No evidence was found of public communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by Mr Loudiyi or the King on the website of the Ministry of Communication (which acts as the government and the King’s spokesperson). In the absence of a website dedicated to the Moroccan armed forces (or any government support or media offering official information about the Moroccan armed forces), the website of the Ministry of Communication was also screened for internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by the Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs or the ministry as an institution. No evidence of such communication was found (3).

No evidence of public communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption measures made by Ministry of Defence or armed forces senior officials was found in the Moroccan and international press (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12).

This lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of evidence found on the website of Transparency Maroc and statements by the latter denouncing the lack of concrete anti-corruption policies implemented by the Moroccan authorities lead to the conclusion that there is no clear and detailed anti-corruption commitment at the internal level in the Moroccan armed forces. It was neither possible to talk to members of the Moroccan armed forces nor to access military gazettes and internal magazines (13)(14)(15).

There is no defence minister in Morocco, defence matters being directly overseen by the King. Abdellatif Loudiyi has been serving as the delegate minister (secretary of state) to the Prime Minister in charge of the administration of national defence since 2010 upon the King’s orders, keeping his position throughout various governments (1)(2).
No statements of commitment by senior officials of the Moroccan Ministry of Defence or armed forces, including the King and Mr Loudiyi were found in the Moroccan and international press (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12).
No statements of commitment by senior officials of the Moroccan Ministry of Defence or armed forces, including the King and Mr Loudiyi were found on the website of the Ministry of Communication (3).
This lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of evidence found on the website of Transparency Maroc and statements by the latter denouncing the lack of concrete anti-corruption policies implemented by the Moroccan authorities lead to the conclusion that there is no clear and detailed anti-corruption commitment at the internal level in the Moroccan armed forces. It was neither possible to talk to members of the Moroccan armed forces nor to access military gazettes and internal magazines (13)(14)(15).

Anti-corruption represents one of the pillars of President Mahamadou Issoufous’ Renaissance Programme (2016–2021). Alongside this, there is a broad-based commitment to tackling corruption in other branches of government and widespread awareness of the issue among the public. In July 2018, a public panel to discuss the issue was organised as part of the African Day of Civil Service (Journée africaine de la fonction publique, JAFP). This was attended by the Minister of Civil Service and Administrative Reform, Christelle Kaffa Rakiatou (1). Based on the assessor’s observations, there is little public commitment by the defence minister, chief of defence, or single-service chiefs in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures. For example, in a February 2018 interview with Jeune Afrique, Minister Moutari did not refer to anti-corruption or integrity measures at the Ministry of Defence (4). Also, the website of Niger’s Ministry of Defence (part of which was hacked in July 2018) does not carry news of speeches or media interviews with Minister of Defence Kalla Moutari (or his staff), regarding anti-corruption or integrity measures. Finally, it seems that internal communication by various government bodies, in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures, is superficial.

Public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures consists of vague statements, with no reference to chiefs or ministers. The assessor did not find evidence that top officials at the Ministry of Defence (including the minister himself) have made recent public statements about anti-corruption.
The Third Chapter of the Presidential Renaissance Programme for 2016-2021 includes fighting against corruption in security and defence institutions as part of improving the overall security governance strategy (1). More broadly, the president, who is also the supreme head of the armed forces, has voiced his commitment to countering corruption in public institutions (2,3). Alongside this, the minister of defence underlined in 2013 the “harmful consequences of corruption for the development of the country” and the need to tackle it in the security and defence sectors (4).

The assessor found no evidence of public commitment (through, for example, speeches, media interviews, or political mandates) to anti-corruption and integrity measures by unit commanders and leaders.
However, on some rare occasions, security forces, related to the Ministry of Interior, have expressed a commitment to combating corruption publicly. For example, in October 2015, the UNODC organised a meeting in Niamey that brought together deputy director generals of the National Police, Judicial Police officers and directors of National Police Schools, as well as heads and representatives of national institutions contributing to the fight against corruption from five Sahel countries (Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Senegal) (1). The Director-General of the National Police of Niger, Mr Boubacar Souley, reiterated his “firm commitment to fight tirelessly against corruption in [his] institution.” The Secretary-General of the Interior Ministry declared that corruption “is a major factor of instability and a threat to the peace.” (1) As an outcome of the meeting, participants issued a public statement calling to fight corruption within security institutions (2).

There is an internal commitment to anti-corruption, as evidenced by the direction that all officers should declare their assets. “The head of Nigeria’s army has ordered all officers to declare their assets in a bid to improve transparency” (1). This internal direction was released to the public. Having identified corruption as a strategic issue, the internal correspondence also backs up the commitment as well as internal communication documents (2).

This indicator has not been assigned a score due to insufficient information or evidence.

“Corruption in the Nigerian Army might be the biggest impediment to the fight against Boko Haram insurgency say rank and file soldiers” (1). Lower ranked officers continued to allege that despite the public statements on corruption within the army, supplies are still not available. This has serious operational implications for serving soldiers.

Following the enactment of the 2016 Integrity Plan, there is a much clearer internal commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures within the defence institutions. The plan outlines the fight against corruption and encourages a culture of integrity in the defence sector [1]. In January 2018, the Ministry of Defence, supported by the United Kingdom Defence Academy, held a training to build integrity amongst the Ministry of Defence and Army Chiefs of Departments, as well as for other high ranking defence officials [2]. In discussions and interviews, with the Chiefs of Departments within the defence sector expressed a high level of satisfaction regarding these integrity policies and the relevant training. These policies, alongside increased transparency within the defence sector, highlights how integrity measures are prevalent at all levels of the defence sector.

The shift towards increased integrity and transparency is echoed in the defence sector’s approach to public discourse. In January 2018, the Minister of Defence, Radmila Sekerinska, instigated a Rulebook on Transparency in which the Ministry committed itself to maximum transparency towards the public [1]. In addition, the enactment of the Ministry of Defence Strategic Defence Review in June 2018 emphasised a focus on accountability, transparency and zero tolerance of corruption [2]. All this, including the publication on the Ministry of Defence’s website of a number of sensitive documents such as the the Ministry of Defence’s Budget, public procurements and salaries of top officials demonstrates the efforts of the defence sector in opening up to the public and encouraging transparency. Ministry of Defence officials, and particularly the Minister, underline this new integrity culture when addressing the public. For instance, at the launch of the integrity training, the Minister highlighted how building integrity and fighting corruption was essential [3]. In an interview in February 2018, she publicly criticised the previous lack of transparency within the Ministry of Defence and emphasised the new openness and accountability measures in the defence sector [4]. In another interview, she also emphasised the new policies of transparency and integrity in the defence sector as the only way to secure membership within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) [5]. Despite her repeatedly of communicating this message of transparency, the measures in place were still mentioned in a summary format rather than explained in detail. Furthermore, the Minister is not always fully supported by other Ministry of Defence officials, especially by those within the Army. Despite earning the 2017 media award for Transparency and Cooperation with the Media [6], the Army Chief of Staff or other Army employees have never publicly communicated anti-corruption or integrity measures [7].

Publications relating to the defence service echo the new integrity policy in the defence sector [1]. However, this new policy is more often mentioned in editorial notes rather than explicitly in statements by senior Ministry of Defence staff or Army officers [2]. Despite general support for integrity in the Ministry of Defence and the Army, no explicit statements relating to the integrity of the defence sector are publicly available. Unit commanders do not have a mandate to make public statements, except for statements related to unit missions or daily unit activities, and these statements can be made only after consultation with the Public Information Office [3]. There is therefore a lack of public statement from senior Ministry of Defence and Army officials, except those coming directly from the Minister.

According to a high-rank officer within the Omani army, there are no internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption by high-ranking Defence and Security officials or the Ministry of Defence (1), (2). Another officer suggests that there are no clear communication channels between branches within the Ministry of Defence, such as the Royal Armed Forces and Royal Police with a focus on corruption and integrity (3), (4), (5). Military courts which address issues of corruption in the defence and security forces have no communication outlets or explicit values of accountability to integrity and anti-corruption (6). Sayyid Badr bin Saud bin Harib al Busaidi, the minister responsible for Defence Affairs is the sole high-ranking senior official named in the Ministry of Defence, there is no public information on structures within the Ministry, or roles equivalent to Chief of Defence or Single Service Chiefs (3).

We could not find a public commitment by the Ministry of Defence or high‐ranking Defence or Security
officials around issues of anticorruption or integrity (1). Also, we did not identify media interviews
granted by any high‐ranking MoD officials on anticorrup?on (2,3). According to our sources, they claim that the army and MoD do not feel that corruption is a pressing issue and therefore, they ignore it (4), (5). The only public announcements concerning corruption are made by the sultan through royal decrees, the latest of which was in 2011, the Law for the Protection of Public Funds and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest (6). Efforts made by the sultan to address corruption, though without explicit reference to defence and security, are key given he holds the position of head of the state, government, Minister of Defence and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (7), (8). We did not find evidence of high‐ranking officials in the Ministry of Defence publicly commiting to anticorruption or integrity in relation to their work.

There are no statements by senior Ministry of Defence or armed forces staff committing to integrity and anti-corruption measures. As discussed above, in the two prior sub-indicators, there is little information regarding structures within the ministry including communication and accountability channels (1). No speeches, media interviews, or endorsements of political mandates were found in institutional or media outlets (2), (3). The Ministry of Defence procedures around tenders and auditing are not published, neither are employees in positions of power within the ministry named on the website apart from Sayyid Badr bin Saud bin Harib al Busaidi, the minister responsible for Defence Affairs (4). No social media accounts of the Ministry of Defence were found, and the news section on the Ministry website is not regularly updated; it contains no news items relating to anti-corruption and integrity measures.

It is very rare that internal communications within the national forces or the security agencies, about integrity and corruption practices happens. The heads of the NF and security apparatuses rarely admit that there is a need for communication on this issue (1).

As a significant number of senior commanders are politically engaged or are indeed members of the executive branch, sometimes they issue statements during interviews where they assert their commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures (1). For example, according to several journalists, the head of the Civil Police during an AMAN conference on corruption and security forces made this type of statement (2).

There are few statements of commitment by senior commanders on anti-corruption measures. These rare statements, when made, may come from commanders who have a political role (1), (2). For example, the head of intelligence, as a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, expressed his efforts against corruption in general terms. There is a concern that these statements are a cliche of political manoeuvering efforts to gain more power among the public (3).

For many years within the framework of the Ministry of National Defence, there was an Office for Anticorruption Procedures, an institution which developed anticorruption mechanisms tailored to the needs of the ministry. An internal communication example showing interest in the subject of anti-corruption is the anti-crisis conference organized by the Military Police in 2017 [1]. However, in 2018 the Anti-Corruption Procedures Bureau was abolished and its tasks and staff were transferred to one of the newly established unit in the Office of the Minister of National Defence [2]. This can be perceived as a downgrading of their commitment to anti-corruption and integrity, even if the tasks of the unit were mainly conserved.

The management of the Ministry of National Defence used to pay attention to the need to fight corruption in public statements. For example, in 2016, the Ministry of National Defence announced the establishment of a “Prevention program in the field of counteracting corruption in the Ministry of National Defence for 2016-2019 ” [1, 2]. In one of the interviews, the MoND minister recognized that corruption is one of the causes of the poor condition of the army [3]. Next defence minister (since 2018) in January 2020 publicly congratulated law enforcement agencies, which arrested three corrupted high rank officers. He stated that “corruption is ruining”. [4]

It is difficult to find official statements on combating corruption made at the command level in the army. Nevertheless, awareness of the problem exists and is demonstrated by the organization of anti-corruption training. In 2017, the military police organised training that focused on the field of anti-corruption within the Support Inspectorate. This was attended by the command level and management staff of military units carrying out tasks related to the management of property and military equipment [1]. Training is also being provided by the military police in a frame of the “Prevention program in the field of counteracting corruption in the Ministry of National Defence for 2016-2019”, extended for 2020. [2]

There is no evidence of any internal communications around commitment to integrity and anti-corruption between chiefs/ministers. There is also no transparency or any information available in relation to internal communications within the defence sector to combat corruption or related to any other defence issues. There is no evidence that the defence sector has internal processes and communications to discuss corruption within its bodies. Although there is no evidence of communications around corruption within the defence sector, the Emir issued Decree No. 6 (2015), aiming to restructure the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority (ACTA), and to increase penalties for corrupt officials. In 2016, another decree was issued to guarantee the State’s Audit Bureau more financial authority and independence [1,2]. In addition to that, Qatar has ratified the UN Convention for Combating Corruption. A National Committee for Integrity and Transparency was established in 2007, through Emiri Decree No. 84, and is currently supervised by the chairman of the State’s Audit Bureau. Furthermore, Law 11/2004 of the Qatari Penal Code focuses on crimes related to corruption and bribery [3]. Qatar also established the Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Centre on November 25, 2012 in Doha, in collaboration with the United Nations [4]. These initiatives show Qatar’s commitment to countering corruption within the government, however, none of these regulations apply to the defence sector. There is no evidence of any internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption specifically within defence institutions, despite the efforts Qatar has exerted to countering corruption in the country more generally [5]. According to our sources, there is no internal communication with regards to corruption. There are, however, internal units (ethical guidance units) that sporadically send communications concerning ethical and religious commitments, but not about. [6,7,8]

As mentioned in the previous sub-indicator, officials within the government have made efforts and expressed commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures, however, this has not been the case in relation to defence. None of the public statements and commitments made by Qatari officials make any reference to the defence sector. For example, Ibrahim Ali Abel, Director of the Transparency Department, and the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority of the Qatar Government, attended the General Assembly meeting to discuss the battle against corruption. [1] In the meeting, the Qatari representative talked about the efforts Qatar is exerting to promote international instruments to combat corruption on all levels. He added that Qatar is ‘focusing on building fair systems of justice in addition to countering organised crime and terrorism. In cooperation with UNODC, it aimed to promote the capacity of States by boosting its own judicial integrity’. Representatives from the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority (ACTA) and the State Audit Bureau have participated in workshops to inform OECD public governance reviews. [2,3,4] However, none of these reviews stated that public commitments relate to the defence sector, and none of these statements were made by chief or ministers within defence. There is no public commitment stated by defence personnel around building integrity and countering corruption within the defence sector itself. There have not been any cases of official public commitment by any of the senior army officers or commanders. [5,6]

There is no stated commitment on behalf of any defence personnel regarding building integrity and countering corruption within the sector. [1,2] Research showed that many Qatari government representatives, none of which are unit commanders or leaders, have committed to countering corruption in the country. Government officials making these statements were mostly representatives of the State’s Audit Bureau and the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority and the General Attorney. These statements mostly appear on media outlets such as Gulf Times, Doha News and The Peninsula. A recent meeting between the Qatari General Attorney-Ali Al Marri, chairman of the Rule of Law and Anti-corruption Centre (ROLAAC), the UN Under Secretary General, and the Executive Director of UNODC, took place with the aim of discussing ways and means to improve transparency and integrity at regional and global levels [3]. Whereas these examples show public commitment to countering corruption in the country, none of these is specifically relevant to the defence sector.

According to our sources, there is very little anti-corruption communication and commitment through official channels. According to one source, in the last five years, there was only one internal communication with a focus on anti-corruption measures and statement from senior officials. However, there are many recent statements by the crown prince (1), (2). King Salman and more notably his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto leader who also serves as minister of defence, in addition to several other senior roles, have ostensibly made fighting corruption one of the main pillars of his Vision 2030 reform programme, a broad series of reforms that include an overhaul of the Saudi economy, society and bureaucracy (3). This has extended to the defence ministry. However, the researcher found no publicly available information on the internal communications within the Ministry of Defence regarding these measures, nor is there evidence of internal commitment to carry out anti-corruption and integrity processes.

According to our sources, there is a public commitment from the senior leadership, but not the military leadership. The commander in chief, who happens to be the crown prince is the only leader who has issued many public statements against corruption; however, these commitments are not followed by serious measures that are not politically motivated against the opposition (1), (2).

The crown prince has made a large number of public statements and instituted measures to tackle corruption, including in the defence industry (3). Notably, in November 2017, Mohammed bin Salman arrested the commander of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), Miteb bin Abdullah, son of former King Abdullah, as part of a widespread anti-corruption sweep. This sweep was spearheaded by a newly-formed anti-corruption committee led by the crown prince, with authority to investigate, arrest, issue travel bans and freeze the assets of those it found to be corrupt (4). Other senior officials in the defence industry were also targeted, including 14 retired military officers who previously served in the Ministry of Defence, as well as two retired SANG officers, on suspicion of involvement in financial contracts which were allegedly corrupt (5).

That being said, this was an ad hoc measure rather than a formalized anti-corruption policy. Furthermore, several analysts and observers have suggested that the anti-corruption crackdown represented a purge of the crown prince’s political enemies and his aim to consolidate his power rather than a meaningful attempt to combat corruption and build integrity in the country’s institutions (6), (7). Given the top-down nature of these initiatives and the lack of transparency regarding the internal processes to battle corruption in the sector, it is unclear to what extent such measures are genuine or how far-reaching they are in reality.

According to our sources, the only person who issues such statement is the crown prince. Except for Crown Prince and Minister of Defence Mohammed bin Salman, there are no statements from senior MoD or armed forces staff making references or statements in support of anti-corruption measures in the sector (1), (2), (3).

Internal commitment to tackling corruption risks within the MoD can be observed in the regular adoption of annual integrity building plans for 13 institutions of the defence system since 2013 [1]. However, taking into account that a series of measures are repeated each year, as well as that certain activity is later evaluated as obsolete in the realisation reports, the impression is that integrity plans are rather a result of legal obligation fulfilment [2] than of a commitment to combating corruption in the defence system.

Commitment to integrity building in public communications depends to a great extent on the personal engagement of the minister and the MoD and SAF staff at the top level. During the mandate of the previous minister (March 2016 – June 2017), the MoD and SAF representatives and the minister himself have participated in different public events and expressed interest in tackling corruption risks within the defence system, including the analysis and dissemination results of the Transparency International Anti-corruption Index 2015 [1, 2, 3]. The minister has also expressed interest in greater cooperation with the Anti-corruption Agency to enhance integrity building within the MoD [4]. According to the MoD public commitment has also been evident during Minister Vulin’s tenure (June 2017 to date), when representatives of the Ministry, the Serbian Armed Forces and the Minister himself participated in various public events and expressed interest in addressing corruption within the defence system, including analysis and dissemination of results of the International Transparency Corruption Index [5].

The MoD and SAF representatives have continued to participate in integrity building activities and public events. However, commitment comes down to occasional individual efforts rather than a systematic engagement in integrity building promotion [1]. The acting assistant minister for defence policy, for instance, spoke at a NATO integrity building conference in Washington in September 2017 [2]. Overall, there are very few declarations and discussions that take place on the unit level [3, 4].

According to our sources, there is a clear anti-corruption commitment from the senior levels of the MoD and the commanders. This is shown through several pieces of training and internal communications during meetings or written statements (1,2). There is a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Defence Ministry and senior members of the Armed Forces. This commitment is shown through the organisation of several anti-corruption pieces of training (3,4,5,6,7). Integrity measures are being implemented in collaboration with the Anti-corruption Authority (INLUCC). (8)

According to our sources, the anti-corruption commitment within the MoD is communicated mainly internally and not to the public. The focus is to work internally without any public enagegment within the issue of corruption in the MoD (1,2). The Ministry of Defence does not communicate on issues of corruption on its website (3). Only a few public announcements concerning anti-corruption from the Ministry of Defence could be found through press reviews and these declarations were generally made at seminars or at the conclusion of a convention between the Ministry of Defence and the Anti-corruption Authority (4).

According to our sources, there is commitment yet in a very minimal form by senior figures from the MoD. This is because it is rare that the MoD and its senior commanders comment on issues in general (1,2). There are no indications of senior military officials discussing corruption inside the units or during educational programs.

The minister of defence addresses corruption issues in his internal communications [1, 2, 3], as do other high ranking MoD officials [4]. However, there is little evidence of the chief of the General Staff (chief of defence) and single service chiefs addressing corruption issues in their internal communications. There are also anti-corruption measures in place like anti-corruption seminars [5], anti-corruption weeks [6], academic courses [7] and lectures [8].

There is evidence that MoD staff communicate externally on corruption issues in the defence sector. For instance, the Minister of Defence demonstrates this through interviews with journalists [1, 2], other high ranking MoD officials participate in meetings with anti-corruption and integrity building NGOs [3, 4] and address those issues in the VRU [5]. At the same time, MoD officials do not always mention specific integrity measures or the management of risks.

As follows from interviews with a former ATO participant, unit commanders seldom addressed corruption issues in their communications with the personnel in 2015-2016, although there might have been some particular cases [1, 2]. Another interviewee reported there were occasions when unit commanders instruct defence personnel on how to handle weapons and military property and piecemeal touch corruption issues since the personnel could be held accountable for the military property they got [3]. However, there is no evidence that defence personnel in the field is briefed on corruption issues [3].

There is a very little commitment by the MoD and its personalities. During a few events, and visits by the commander in chief of the armed forces, they express enthusiasm against corruption. However, the ministry might issue internal communications of a superficial nature in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures, which come as letters during special events like the Transparency International Index Annual Report that the UAE is the first in the region (1), (2).

The UAE leadership is also the head of the armed forces, and they issue many public statements committing the country and its leadership and institutions to integrity and anti-corruption (1), (2). Many of the statements are available online in newspapers or elsewhere (3).

There is little stated commitment on behalf of any defence personnel (commanders are mostly from the royal families) about building integrity and countering corruption within the defence sector. Research showed that many UAE government representatives, none of which are unit commanders or leaders in the defence sector, have reiterated their commitment to countering corruption in the country (1), (2).

Country Sort by Country 34a. Chiefs/Ministers: Internal communications Sort By Subindicator 34b. Chiefs/Ministers: Public commitment Sort By Subindicator 34c. Unit commanders and leaders Sort By Subindicator
Albania 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Algeria 0 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Angola 0 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Armenia 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Azerbaijan 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Bosnia and Herzegovina 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Cameroon 0 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Estonia 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Georgia 100 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Ghana 50 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Hungary 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Iraq 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Jordan 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Kosovo 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Lebanon 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Lithuania 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Mali 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Montenegro 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Niger 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 25 / 100 NEI 0 / 100
North Macedonia 75 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Oman 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Poland 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Qatar 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Saudi Arabia 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Serbia 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Tunisia 100 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Ukraine 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
United Arab Emirates 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100

With thanks for support from the UK Department for International Development and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2021