There is no policy of the defence institution to make outcomes of prosecution publicly available. [1].[2]

Currently, there are no permanent military courts or courts martial operating in Benin. Military personnel are subject to internal disciplinary measures (administrative sanctions) provided for in their regulations [1]. These sanctions are imposed without recourse to a structured military court, but rather through internal disciplinary committees within the army. In addition, military personnel are also prosecuted in ordinary courts and, for acts of corruption, before the CRIET. Before the CRIET, the trial is public and the charges and results are disclosed to the public. This includes the date, location, and details of the charge, as well as information on the hearing [2].

Currently, there are no permanent military courts or courts martial operating in Benin. Military personnel are prosecuted for acts of corruption before the CRIET. Before the CRIET, cases are investigated or prosecuted through formal processes [1]. There are no allegation of undue political influence raised by media or people involved in the trials [2].

Prosecutions are very rare and there is no policy for making available the results of the few prosecutions that do take place. [1] [2]

No information on prosecutions is made available. [1] [2]

The General Inspectorate of the Ministry of Defence and the Anti-Corruption Brigade carry out numerous investigations and manage to shed light on cases of corruption, but most of the time, prosecutions do not follow [1] [2]. There is a lot of interference that hinders prosecutions. These interferences generally come from high-ranking army officers who are implicated in cases of corruption [1] [2] [3].

There is no systematic approach to publicly sharing the outcomes of military corruption cases, limiting public access to information [1]. While there are occasional media reports on high-profile cases, particularly those involving senior figures, many cases involving lower-ranking military personnel remain undisclosed[1]. This lack of regular and clear reporting on convictions or acquittals undermines the transparency of military corruption prosecutions.

Cameroon has anti-corruption policies in place, including the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC), but the government’s transparency regarding prosecution outcomes of defence services personnel for corrupt activities remains limited. While there is an anti-corruption framework, there is no clear, consistent policy that ensures the public is regularly informed about the outcomes of military corruption prosecutions. Occasionally, some prosecutions, especially involving lower-ranking personnel, are reported in the media, but these disclosures are rare and inconsistent. High-ranking military personnel are often subject to less public scrutiny, and cases involving them tend to be handled discreetly, if not dismissed altogether [1]. The lack of systematic reporting on convictions or acquittals, particularly for high-ranking officers, undermines transparency [2]. There is limited evidence of effective prosecution of military corruption. While a few high-profile cases, such as those involving the mismanagement of military funds, have received attention, these appear to be isolated incidents rather than part of a broader, sustained effort. In some cases, high-ranking officials or military personnel have faced minimal consequences, with some cases being quietly dismissed or delayed [2]. The irregular enforcement of anti-corruption laws and the lack of political will to tackle corruption in the military contribute to a sense of impunity.

Cameroon does not have a clear or consistent policy to publicly disclose the outcomes of prosecutions involving defense services personnel for corrupt activities. The existing anti-corruption mechanisms, such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC), are not effective in ensuring transparency or consistent prosecution results. High-profile cases involving military personnel, especially senior officers, often go unreported or are handled discreetly, with little follow-up on the outcomes [1] [2].

The prosecution of corruption cases within the military sector is sporadic. There have been instances of corruption, such as embezzlement and mismanagement of funds, but these are rarely brought to public scrutiny or pursued with sufficient rigor. For instance, reports on corruption within the Cameroonian military, including alleged misappropriations of funds for military equipment and allowances, are not followed up with adequate transparency [2]. In some cases, prosecution efforts appear influenced by political considerations, with high-ranking military personnel often receiving minimal consequences or cases being quietly dismissed [1].

There is no official Ministry of Defence policy on the publication of the results of legal proceedings. The tendency is not to communicate too much about investigations that may involve officers. That said, the press reports on important cases and high-profile trials! [1].

Some of the results of prosecutions are made public in the press. The details provided in these articles give information on the charges, the date and the place of the hearing [1, 2].

Over the past five years, several cases of corruption have been investigated and punished, but these have mainly involved petty corruption [1, 2, 3]. In general, the defence and security forces seem to want to protect their personnel first and foremost and therefore favour amicable solutions [4]. The Freedom House report also indicates that, in general, the country’s judicial system is not independent and that judges are highly susceptible to external interference and corruption [5].

The military is governed by the Armed Forces Act (1962), Act 105, the Armed Forces Regulations, and the Code of Service Discipline. However, none of these documents require making prosecution results publicly available. In accordance with the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29), some cases handled by a civil court are made publicly available, especially when there is public interest in the matter. For example, the sanctions given to 86 soldiers involved in the assault of civilians in War, in the Upper West Region of Ghana, were announced by the Minister of Defence, Dominic Nitiwul, to Parliament. (1)(2)

Cases presided by court martial in Ghana are not publicly available. (1)(2)

There are instances where formal procedures have been followed in the prosecution of force personnel, such as in the case of an alleged extortion of 136, 000 GHC from approximately 22 individuals by a military officer who promised to enlist them into Ghana’s security services. The case has proceeded through formal legal processes without any interference. (1) In 2024, after completing all legally mandated formal processes, six Ghanaians, including three military officers, received a sentence of death by hanging for their involvement in a coup plot in 2021. (2)
Some high-profile cases, such as the Airbus bribery matter, have generated public debate and concerns over whether political considerations could influence investigative or prosecutorial decisions (3) (4). While there has been no judicial finding of undue influence, these perceptions suggest that political factors may occasionally be seen as a risk in sensitive cases.

Court martial outcomes are publicly available [1]. The law also provides for appeals to the high court under Article 186 of the KDF Act 2012 (amended 2016). These proceedings are publicly available. The KDF also posts the cases presented at the court martial [3], and some of these are covered by the media [4].

The results of prosecution are made publicly available through the Kenya Law Report platform [1]. However, court martial outcomes are only topline and posted on the MOD website and covered by the media [2].

While formal processes exist for investigating and prosecuting cases in Kenya’s military, the effectiveness of these processes and the degree of undue influence remain unclear. According to the U.S. Department of State’s 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Kenya has mechanisms in place for investigating abuses, yet “impunity at all levels of government continued to be a serious problem” [1]. The report notes that investigations into serious crimes committed by security forces, including the military, were often not conducted in a timely or thorough manner.
Despite this, there have been instances of formal investigations into military misconduct. For example, in 2021, the KKDF launched an investigation into officers accused of selling military uniforms to civilians [2]. This action demonstrated a willingness to address internal issues through official channels.

Liberia maintains an internal military justice system (JAG, Military Police, court-martial framework) under the National Defense Act, with repeated official references to an AFL UCMJ–style regime.[1][2] Outcomes are primarily communicated through command channels; there is no codified policy mandating public release of prosecution results, though occasional public statements are issued at the MoD’s decision.[3]
According to the Ministry of National Defense’s review, prosecution outcomes are also communicated internally via JAG ethical briefings and, when necessary, official reports and public declarations. In addition, the MoD indicates that it is advocating for policy changes through the Strategic Working Group to enhance public reporting on disciplinary actions without endangering national security.[4] However, while these measures reflect ongoing attempts to institutionalise accountability, there remains no formal MoD/AFL policy or regulation requiring the systematic publication of prosecution or disciplinary outcomes.

There is little information in making prosecution of personnel publicly available. Information released are mostly posted on the Ministry of National Defense website and not necessary published in major newspapers.[1[[2] According to the MoD review, information on disciplinary proceedings is also occasionally disseminated through press briefings, Armed Forces Day reports, and coverage in national media outlets.[3] Nonetheless, while these channels exist, there is still no formal policy requiring systematic publication of prosecution outcomes.

There is some evidence to suggest that cases brought up in the military have been investigated and prosecuted. For instance, in June 2024, the Ministry of National Defense announced the discharge of three active-duty personnel from the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL). Though details of the cases were not extensively disclosed, the Ministry stated that the discharges followed internal investigations and disciplinary proceedings, which demonstrates that some accountability mechanisms are operational within the military hierarchy.[1]
In another instance, the Ministry of National Defense issued a public advisory in 2020 amid rumors of bribery linked to AFL recruitment processes. The public was urged to report any solicitation of bribes, and the notice was framed as part of the Ministry’s broader anti-corruption posture. This appears to have been more of a preventive measure than a response to substantiated reports, and no public outcome followed.[2]
Another example of accountability was the prosecution of former Defence Minister Brownie Samukai, who was convicted of embezzling over US$1 million from AFL pension funds. The case was initiated following an audit by the General Auditing Commission (GAC). Despite his partial repayment of the funds, the Supreme Court of Liberia upheld his conviction, and Samukai was eventually sentenced to a custodial sentence.[3] This case illustrates that investigations and prosecutions can, under pressure or external oversight, reach senior levels of the defence establishment.
However, prosecutions are rare and often politically charged. This indicates that internal investigations are inconsistent, and prosecutions typically occur only when there are public or political pressure. Furthermore, the influence of the Executive over the Judiciary raises concerns about the independence and regularity of enforcement actions in politically sensitive cases.[4] As a result, the system appears to be reactive rather than preventive.

Generally, the military does not communicate about prosecutions against its personnel for acts of corruption. The media do not talk about it due to the lack of an official policy of the institution to make such information public [1]. Moreover, article 45 of Law No. 96-029 on the General Status of the Military stipulates that “disciplinary sanctions are not made public. They cannot give rise to any legal recourse” [2].

Almost no information on the prosecutions initiated against members of the personnel of the defence services is disseminated. In recent years, no soldier convicted of corruption is known to the public. [1] [2].

There are cases of prosecution of members of the security services for corruption [1], although some sources believe that the military always make arrangements among themselves to avoid exposing to the public a flaw in the military institution [2][3]. The military hierarchy often intervenes in this regard [4].

There is no obligation on the defence institution to make the results of the prosecutions public.[1] The results of the prosecutions may be obtained from the military court or be the subject of a press article,[2] if they are judicial files.

The alleged offences and the results of the proceedings may be made public through the press.[1] This information may include the date, location and alleged offences, as well as information regarding the hearing. Several military officers were arrested and placed in custody on suspicion of fraud and embezzlement.[2][3]

Prosecutions and investigations have been carried out in some cases and made public,[1] it can obviously suffer from political influence but none has been recorded in media reports.[2][3]

There is no a specific policy of the defence institution to make outcomes of prosecution publicly available, apart from the Anti-Corruption Law [1] and the Strategy for Preventing and Combating Corruption [2].

Information on prosecutions are not publicly available, as they are treated as sesitive/classified information, taking into account the State Secret Protection Law[1] and Law on the Right to Information [2]. While the information produced within the Ministry of National Defence and the Armed Forces is classified [1], there are cases of some processes carried out by the General Defence Inspectorate that are made public by the press or other State institutions that become aware of them, such as the Ministry of Finance, the Attorney General’s Office or the Courts that judge the cases. In the case of the “Dívidas Ocultas” trial, the justice institutions ended up revealing confidential processes of the Defence Sector, which are normally not disclosed after audits by the General Defence Inspectorate [3].

There are cases of defence services personnel investigated and prosecuted through formal procedures using the Armed Forces Disciplinary Regulations [1], Military Crimes Act [2] and formal legal procedures. There are also cases of military personnel and civilians from the Ministry of National Defence and Armed Forces units who were arrested and convicted for improper payments, embezzlement of funds and money laundering in 2017, sentenced to 10 and 16 years in prison for corrupt practices [3]. Moreover, in 2024, criminal proceedings were opened for the misappropriation of around fifty million meticais paid to companies that provide services to the Armed Forces in an undue manner, without following administrative procedures respectively [4].
However, According to a country report from Freedom House, judicial independence in Mozambique is compromised by executive dominance. The Attorney General is appointed by the President, and leadership pressure often impedes investigations—especially involving elite figures [5]. This suggests that proceedings could be selective and influenced by political considerations.

There is no formal policy requiring the public disclosure of the outcomes of prosecutions of defense services personnel for corruption-related offenses in Niger. The 2003 Military Penal Code does not contain any provisions mandating transparency in such cases. Specifically, Chapter I (De la Police Judiciaire Militaire, Articles 46–49) and Chapter III (De l’Action publique et des poursuites) outline judicial procedures and prosecutorial authority within the military justice system but make no reference to public reporting of corruption prosecutions [1]. Given the opaque nature of military governance—particularly following the July 26, 2023, coup—there is little incentive for authorities to introduce transparency mechanisms in cases involving corruption within the armed forces [2]. The lack of institutionalized public reporting on such matters suggests that no formal policy exists. Furthermore, recent cases of corruption scandals within the defense sector, including the 2020 Ministry of Defense procurement fraud scandal, were not accompanied by systematic public disclosure by the authorities.

The results of prosecutions of defense services personnel for corruption are rarely made publicly available. Typically, there is no detailed public information regarding the specific charges, the judicial proceedings, or the outcomes of hearings [1][2]. The lack of transparency in military judicial processes, particularly regarding corruption cases, reinforces a broader pattern of opacity in the defense sector, where accountability mechanisms are either weak or absent.

The effectiveness of prosecutions for corruption within Niger’s defense sector remains highly questionable. While legal provisions exist under the Military Penal Code [1] and the Public Penal Code [2], there is little evidence that these laws are systematically enforced. The absence of independent oversight mechanisms and the concentration of power within the military, particularly following the July 26, 2023, coup, further reduce the likelihood of impartial investigations and prosecutions. Additionally, historical cases, such as the “MDN-Gate” scandal, where millions of dollars were misappropriated in military procurement fraud, highlight the selective application of justice. Rather than fully prosecuting those implicated, authorities have often opted for negotiated settlements, financial recoveries, or administrative reassignments rather than criminal convictions [3]. Given these challenges—ranging from the lack of transparency to selective prosecutions and political interference—there is no strong evidence that corruption cases within the defense sector are effectively prosecuted.

There is no formal policy that requires or mandates the ministry of defence to make prosecution outcomes of anti-corruption agencies or trial have public information. However, public access to proceedings of court martial is usually limited although a summary of the judgement can be made public [1]. There might be exceptions to this tradition however, especially, when the military seek to rebuild public trust and confidence after suffering some dent. In this regard, attempt to regain its institutional legitimacy may warrant sufficient disclosure of prosecution. For instance, the current Chief of Army Staff, Lt. General Taoreed Lagbaja quest to respect internal due process and the rule of law, guaranteed the successful prosecution and conviction of the former Group Managing Director of the Army Properties Limited (NAPL), Major General Umaru Mohammed, for misappropriation and diversion of Army property [2]

The results of prosecution are made publicly available, but there is little or no access to information on the charges or the hearing, or other key details. It has been earlier noted that no fewer than 644 personnel of the Nigerian Army appeared before a court martial between 2019 and 2023 to stand trial for various offences bordering on misconduct, murder, and corruption, among others [2]. Details of such trials made public indicate that in June 2022, a total of 227 soldiers and officers were dragged before the military court at the Maimalari Barrack in Maiduguri, Borno State. Also in 2022, a court martial in Borno ordered the imprisonment of 30 soldiers while another special court was set up to try 29 soldiers in the same year [2]. Appropriate sanctions or punishments are imposed on the convicted personnel.

In recent years, cases are investigated or prosecuted through formal processes, but there may be cases where undue political influence is attempted and sometimes undermine effective or diligent prosecutions. For example, no fewer than 644 personnel of the Nigerian Army appeared before a court martial between 2019 and 2023 to stand trial for various offences bordering on misconduct, murder, and corruption, among others [1]. However, there are isolated cases where political influence derailed the process. A case in point is the saga over the role of military personnel in the escape of kidnap kingpin arrested by the Police kingpin Mr Hamisu Bala, better known as Wadume [2]. Undue political influence proved effective at shielding the soldiers complicit in the unlawful release of the kidnap kingpin [3].

Senegal’s defence sector does not have a clear, formal or informal policy requiring the publication of prosecution outcomes for corruption cases. Media occasionally reports on cases, but no systematic disclosure occurs. Prosecutions are carried out by the Directorate of Military Justice, and sanctions are applied. [1] According to the Penal Code, any Senegalese or foreigner who, without the intention of treason or espionage, makes known to an unqualified person or to the public military information that has not been made public by the competent authority and the disclosure of which is clearly likely to compromise public security, will be punished by imprisonment of between one and five years. Information relating to the prosecution of military personnel may be included in this batch. [2]

Occasionally, a case is reported in the media without much detail, but this is not intentionally published by the army [1] . Four soldiers on duty at the Air Force support deployment in Ouakam were accused of paedophilia, statutory rapnce and rape of a 15-year-old girl. They were brought before, the Dakar Public Prosecutor again yesterday, after being returned to the prosecution. No detailed information has been released about the fate of these 4 soldiers, even though the trial had already taken place. [2] Three Senegalese soldiers are due to appear before the Military Court in June 2022. The two non-commissioned officers and the soldier are to be charged by the Doyen des juges d’instruction with ‘complicity in undermining State security, undermining national defence, endangering the lives of others and plotting against the authority of the State’. No information has been released about the fate of these soldiers, and the army has not made any public statements on the issue.[3]

Corruption cases are investigated or prosecuted under formal procedures, but there may be cases where attempts are made to exert influence. However, influences can come from both the hierarchy and politics and unfortunately they manage to derail prosecutions but the opacity ot the sector complicates its visibility. Some soldiers are not tried and sentenced for minor offences. On the other hand, if the offence is serious, the person is punished to serve as an example to others. [1] [2]

The defence sector does not have a formal policy of making the outcomes of prosecutions publicly available. Although the Department of Defence does provide status reports to the relevant parliamentary committees when requested. [1]

The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans has regularly called in the head of Military Police to provide updates on corruption investigations. [1] Updates on cases are, however, at a very high-level with limited information on charges, the results of prosecution and the details of cases.

Corruption cases are investigated by relevant law enforcement bodies and charges have been brought in several cases. [1] However, there is clear evidence of undue interference undermining investigations with documents needed for investigations disappearing and senior officials avoiding investigation. [2]

South Sudan does not have policies that require defence institutions to make prosecutions publicly available. However, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act 2018, which is applicable to the defence ministry provides the punishment for corrupt activities but does not provide for conditions for prosecutions to be made public. [1]

Information regarding the prosecution of defence ministry officers for corruption remains largely unavailable to the public. While local and regional media often report on officers being implicated or even dismissed for corrupt activities, the details of their prosecution processes have not been disclosed. [1], [2] This lack of transparency hinders public scrutiny and accountability, raising concerns about the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures within the defence sector.

Senior South Sudanese military officials have been implicated in multiple corruption investigation reports; [1], [2] however, there remains a conspicuous lack of transparency regarding their prosecution. The absence of detailed information on the sanctions imposed and sentences rendered to those involved in corrupt practices obscures any meaningful assessment of the efficacy of these investigations and the judicial process. [3] This opacity undermines efforts to ensure accountability and casts doubt on the broader integrity of anti-corruption measures within the military hierarchy.

UPDF Act (2005) mandates publication of court-martial proceedings and outcomes. The UPDF also publishes annual reports and occasional press releases on anticorruption on its website [1]. But also publishes cations made by Senior army officials. For example, President Yoweri Museveni and Commander in Chief of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) made the above remarks as he officiated at Intake 02 – 2023/24 graduation at the National Defence College -Uganda in Buikwe district. He said that the graduates of the second cohort of the National Defence College – Uganda (NDC-U) have been implored to avoid any corrupt tendencies for the continuous socio-economic transformation of the country [2].

Transparency is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the defence services and promoting accountability for corrupt activities. The UPDF publishes annual reports and occasional press releases on anticorruption on its website.[1] For example, a 35-year-old Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) soldier accused of illegally obtaining sh14.6m from a widow has been granted bail. Capt Denis Obia, an officer of the UPDF attached to the Chieftaincy of Pensions and Gratuity as a Staff Officer, was Thursday granted bail by the General Court Martial (GCM) sitting at Makindye in Kampala. [2]

Both the charges and results of prosecutions are made publicly available. For court martials above a certain rank, information is released to the public as a matter of course. This includes the date, location and details of the charge, and information on the hearing. For example, the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) General Court Martial sitting in Makindye, Kampala City, and chaired by Brig Gen Freeman Mugabe, has today sentenced and set free two people charged with unlawful possession of defence stores and unlawful possession of military clothing and ammunition, respectively. Musinguzi Denis, a male adult, aged 24 years, has been sentenced to three (03) years eleven (11) months and fourteen (14) days imprisonment to Kitalya government prison. While reading the sentence Brig Gen Freeman Mugabe said the accused was charged for the offence of unlawful possession of defence stores contrary to section 160(1) and (2) of the UPDF Act 2005 on the 14th day of November 2022 and pleaded guilty. Court has also set free Lt (Rtd) Idris Musitwa, a Ugandan male adult, aged 64 years and resident of Kirokole Zone Kawempe Municipality, in Kampala District. He was charged with unlawful possession of ammunition and military clothing contrary to section 3(2) (a) of the firearms act cap 299.[3]

The effectiveness of making public the outcomes of the prosecution of defence services personnel for corrupt activities can serve as a deterrence to corruption.[1] For example, the High Court in Kampala is currently trying Maj Lubega, Ms Twinomugisha, Ms Kyakabale, and others still at large for orchestrating an employment contract with a non-existent Russian pilot, Valerie Ketrisk. This fraudulent contract led to the loss of more than Shs2 billion in salaries paid over 11 years for Mi-17 and Mi-24 military helicopter operations. This case highlights efforts to hold individuals accountable through formal legal processes.
Additionally, the 5 Division Court Martial chaired by Colonel Ismail Sendagire recently dismissed four (4) soldiers from the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces and sentenced them to one year of imprisonment for the torture of Omon Nelson on December 11, 2023. The public trial, held in Lagot Parish, Mucwini Sub-County, Kitgum District, was attended by UPDF leadership, local government officials, religious leaders, and community members, reinforcing transparency in the military justice system.[2].
However, concerns remain regarding the broader implications of military court jurisdiction, particularly over civilians. A landmark ruling by Uganda’s Supreme Court in 2025 declared military trials of civilians unconstitutional, a decision viewed as a victory for human rights and due process.[3] This raises questions about the extent of military court authority and the need for further reforms in the prosecution of corruption-related cases within the defence sector.

According to an interviewee, cases involving corruption are investigated and prosecuted through formal judicial processes, without undue political influence.[4] Nonetheless, ongoing scrutiny from human rights organisations and legal experts suggests a need for continued monitoring of military trials to ensure they align with constitutional and human rights standards.[5]

There is no policy to make public any of the outcomes on the prosecution of the defence personnel [1]. However, sometimes the media publish some information on court martial rulings [2]. The Defence Act does not provide for such a policy to make information on convictions publicly available [3].

Information is only shared within the battalions and brigades, the ones where the convicted soldiers were based; this information also involves clearance of their military clothing, bedding and utensils [1]. There is no information available for convicted defence personnel outside the barracks [1]. If some of the information is made publicly available, it is likely to be sketchy. Therefore, it is difficult to understand what happened, how it happened and who convicted the soldiers. [2]. The full judgement is not available either, not even to the battalion and brigades concerned [1].

While senior officers in the Zimbabwe Defence Forces are rarely prosecuted, there is occasional institutional action and investigation, signaling at least some accountability in practice. In February 2024, the ZDF formally launched investigations into corruption allegations involving three senior generals, confirming internal procedures under way for high-ranking misconduct even if prosecutions remain rare [1]. Legally, the Defence Act outlines the framework for disciplinary action and court martial penalties for all ranks, including senior officers, although enforcement against top brass is inconsistent 2].