The Ministerial Internal Audit Committee (CMAI) defines the audit policy of the Ministry of Defence; ensures the quality of the internal control system aimed at guaranteeing the control of risks related to the implementation of public policies; approves the annual programme of inspections or audits of the General Inspectorate of the Armed Forces; ensures the follow-up of the actions decided at the end of these controls or audits; and approves the department’s internal audit quality assurance program [1] [3]. The CMAI has the flexibility to build its own work programme, but they need to meet in ordinary session twice a year, at the invitation of its president. It may, if necessary, meet in extraordinary session [2]. The knowledge and expertise of the staff is appropriate because those people are high-level staff and there is low staff turnover. This enable them to offer a relevant, critical and impartial point of view. [3].[4]

The National Assembly is responsible for monitoring government action, as well as for supervising the implementation of the budget. The National Assembly does not systematically receive audit reports. Its mode of control is through oral or written questions addressed to the government [1] and commissions of inquiry [2]. There were no commissions of inquiry set up by the National Assembly during the period under review to examine issues related to the expenditure of the Ministry of National Defence [3].

Internal audit reports are primarily intended for departmental officials, internal audit committees, and internal control bodies to ensure continuous improvement of operations and controls. They can also be shared with the Court of Auditors and, indirectly, with Parliament to ensure transparency and accountability in the management of public finances and ministerial operations [1]. The Court of Auditors, as the supreme external audit body of public finances, receives internal audit reports for monitoring and verification purposes [2]. Internal audit reports serve as the basis for external audits carried out by the Court of Auditors. As for parliament, internal audit reports are not systematically or proactively sent to it. However, the conclusions of internal audits may be incorporated into the reports submitted by the ministries or the Court of Auditors to Parliament. Parliamentary committees may request additional information on internal audits as part of their oversight functions [3]. This process is in-depth and regular.

Benin’s Ministry of Defence regularly takes into account the conclusions of audits and controls carried out on its practices. This is part of a process of transparency and accountability to Beninese citizens [1]. The CMMR and the CMAI monitor the implementation of audit recommendations and reforms to ensure continuous improvement of ministerial processes [2].

Internal auditing of Ministry of Defence expenditure is carried out by a unit of the Ministerial Inspectorate General [1]. This inspectorate is made up of competent executives who have undergone extensive training in the inspection of state finances. It carries out its work on a regular basis and submits reports to the Minister of Defence, but the latter rarely, if ever, follows up on these report. The regular reports that are produced are of highood quality. However,the hierarchical authorities of the Ministry of Defence do not value them. [2]

The reports sent from the internal audit of the Ministry of Defence’s expenditure never go beyond this structure,as they are considered strictly internal. The parliamentary committee does not have access to them. [1] [2]

The internal audit reports on expenditure are kept at the Ministry of Defence and is never relayed to anti-corruption organizsations. [1] [2]

The minister sometimes corrects certain practices when he is able to.Occasionally, certain ministry officials who are guilty of non-transparent practices are transferred to other departments, but that’s about it. Thus, to a certain extent, the ministry takes into account the recommendations made in internal audits due to these transfers of corrupt civil servants. However, no sanctions are being imposed.[1][2]

Internal control within the Cameroon Ministry of Defence is carried out by the General Control Department and the General Inspectorate of the Cameroonian Defence Forces. Financial controls of the Ministry of Defence’s budget is just one aspect of the broader responsibilities of these two departments. The auditors and inspectors regularly reviews the Ministry’s expenditure, benefiting from extensive experience since they are mostly colonels in the army, which provides them with some latitude and, importantly, a degree of independence from other bodies within the Ministry. However, it is important to note that the control department’s effectiveness within the Ministry is limited. Prior to 2001 decrees, such a department did not exist.[1] Since its creation through the aforementioned decrees, there has been a high turnover of general or senior officers in these roles. Consequently, It is the political authorities responsible for defence, particularly the minister or the President of the Republic, who are tasked with responding appropriately to the irregularities identified by controllers and inspectors.[2] The formal process outlined in the legal texts is not always fully adhered to.

In normal cases, Parliament exercises oversight over defence and security policies. Audits within the National Assembly take the form of parliamentary enquiries and oral questions. Regarding parliamentary enquiries, a request is first submitted to the Bureau of the National Assembly (AN), then the Bureau votes and finally, the enquiry is initiated if the majority of the Bureau approves. In the case of oral questions, parliamentarians submit their questions to the President of the National Assembly, who then asks the relevant minister to respond. Ministers provide clarifications during oral questions.[1] However, Parliament rarely supervises sensitive or critical issues. The fact that MINDEF reports directly to the President generally hampers the ability to carry out sustained audits or oversight on sensitive matters. In addition, some military units are not funded by the Ministry of Defence’s budget, and there is little or no information about how potential audits could be carried out there.[2]

Firstly, the MINDEF audits from last yea still have not been submitted to the body responsible for fighting corruption in Cameroon (CONAC). For example, in October 2023, the director of CONAC complained that the Ministry of Defence had not contributed to his annual report. The Ministry of Defence is among the ministries that impedes the smooth production of CONAC reports. This issue is even more pronounced when it comes to MINDEF expenditure. The purchase of arms, munitions and envelopes dedicated to war becomes even more delicate, if not impossible, to audit. Secondly, there exists a body called the Conseil Supérieur de l’Etat (CONSUPE), which is a supreme audit institution for public finances. Although the structure has existed since 1962, it is important to note that its current name comes from Decree No. 2005/374 of 11 October 2005 on the organisation of the Superior State Audit.[1] It contributes to protecting public assets against spoliation, misappropriation, and other forms of abuse, and promotes sound public financial and administrative governance.[2] However, the activities of CONSUPE do not really mention the control of defence policies and budget. This is because sovereign ministries such as MINDEF are difficult to audit. By way of illustration, the arrest of the former Minister of Defence was ordered by the President of the Republic.[3]

The first thing to consider is that the reports of the internal audit, carried out by the general control of the armed forces and the General Inspectorate, are forwarded to the Minister of Defence and the President of the Republic. However, the military context is hierarchical, and it is often difficult for auditors at MINDEF, who are soldiers from the Ministry, to be critical of their superiors in corruption cases. The fact that reports are forwarded and censored by MINDEF and the Presidency does not contribute to the effective production of the audit activity.[1] Secondly, the audit carried out by Parliament is considered piecemeal, based on their own areas of interest and electoral interest. Thirdly, iIt is important to acknowledge that the results of the internal audits within the Ministry of Defence are sometime taken into consideration by the minister or the President of the Republic. There are rarely judicial prosecutions, but sometimes officers who appear to have committed mismanagement or corruption are appointed to less prestigious positions (indirect sanction), receive direct sanctions such as being degraded, and, in rare cases are excluded from the army.[2]

Within the Ministry of Defence, there is a General Inspectorate and a General Control of Defence Administration and Finance (CGAFD), whose main task is to supervise and control the financial, administrative and logistical management of resources allocated to the defence sector .[1] [2][3] These two bodies play an essential role in evaluating and monitoring the use of public funds allocated to defence, ensuring that resources are used efficiently, legally and in accordance with the principles of good management. However, these units are under the authority of the Minister of Defence, which calls into question the independence of the audit, and no information is available on the expertise of their staff.

The CGAFD or IGA may make recommendations to improve the management and performance of the audited services. However, the available sources do not explicitly mention details regarding the transparency of its reports and their accessibility to Parliament or the public, and the law does not require it to share its reports with oversight committees. [1][2][3]

The CGAFD or the IGA may make recommendations to improve the management and performance of the audited services. However, the available sources do not explicitly mention details regarding the transparency of its reports and their accessibility to Parliament or the public. The mandates of these internal audit mechanisms, in accordance with Decree No. 2016-257, do not mention any external audit requirements. The IGA and the CGFAD report directly to the office of the Minister of Defence [1].

There is no information indicating that the ministry has taken the recommendations into account, or even that recommendations have been issued by this unit. A new inspector was appointed in 2019. [1] There are also reports indicating that the Inspectorate is active in staff training [2] or in collaboration with Senegalese inspectors [3], but no information on direct recommendations to the Ministry of Defence.

As a public sector organisation, the defence ministry is subject to the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921). Consequently, per Section 83 (1), the Ministry has an internal audit unit tasked with appraising and reporting on the soundness and application of the system of controls operating in the covered entity; evaluating the effectiveness of the risk management and governance process and contributing to the improvement of that risk management and governance process; providing assurance on the efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the administration of the programmes and operations of a covered entity; and (d) evaluating compliance of a covered entity with enactments, policies, standards, systems and procedures. (1) Per Section 83 (4), the annual audit work plan is to be developed in consultation with the Principal Spending Officer of the Ministry and in accordance with guidelines issued by the Internal Audit Agency. The Internal Audit Unit of the Ministry therefore has no flexibility to build its own work programme for the year. The audit unit’s work generates findings that are considered relevant at senior levels. This is exemplified by the 2022 Auditor General’s Report of the Ministry of Defence indicating the indebtedness of the 37 military hospitals to 57 suppliers between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2022 to the tune of GH¢8,513,954.08. (2)

Although the Internal Auditor does not report directly to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, the Provisions of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) under 83 (7) list the offices to which quarterly reports on the execution of the Annual Audit Work Plan to be sent to include the Auditor General among others. (1) Since the Auditor General’s Report is subject to some oversight by the Public Account Committee of Parliament, there is an established trail by which the Internal Audit Unit may enable parliamentary oversight. This is especially the case where the internal auditor suspects that a Principal Spending Officer is involved in fraud or misuse of public funds. The report of the Committee on Defence and Interior indicates the oversight of the committee on defence policy, budget and the procurement of military hardware. The budget of the MOD is therefore given out in a non-redacted format for them to be able to function efficiently, but such documents are not meant to be publicly available. The 2022 fiscal report presented by the Defence and Interior Committee underscored various military expenditures in their non-redacted form, from hardware purchases to infrastructure development. (2)

Section 83 (7) of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016, provides a clear guideline regarding how audit reports are released, including to the Audit Committee, the Auditor-General and the Director-General of the Internal Audit Agency. The audit service is mandated to externally audit the MOD. An example is the Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana—Ministries, Departments, and Other Agencies for the year ended December 31, 2022. The reports highlighted the total payments made by the MOD within the fiscal year that amounted to GH¢470,417.57, in which GH¢368,082.14 was the only amount accounted for with adequate supporting documents while GH¢102,335.43 was not accounted for. (3) These reports in practice are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, who invite in relevant heads to answer for various infractions observed within the report.

The Ministry of Defence, like other public sector organisations are subject to the oversight responsibilities of the Public Accounts Committee. (1) The Ministry therefore tries to address audit findings in its practices. Section 85 (1) (b) of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016. Act 921 makes this mandatory, as it requires the Principal Spending Officer to, on an annual basis, submit a report on the status of implementation of recommendations made by Parliament to the Minister and the Auditor General. (2) There is evidence to suggest that the MOD responds to recommendations made by internal audit units; this is cited in the report of the Auditor General for the Year 2024, indicating in section 1808 the payment of an unearned salary of GH¢3,957.34 for October 2023 despite the effective vacation of post by the said beneficiary on September 22, 2023. The internal audit report therefore recommended that the Chief Director of the MOD recover the said amount from the beneficiary with interest at the prevailing Bank of Ghana rate. Section 1810 of the report underscored that the MOD had responded that it had issued a demand notice to the said officer as recommended by the internal audit unit (3). This is to suggest that the MOD adheres to recommendations by the internal audit unit.

While Specific internal audit reports detailing issues within the Ministry of Defence are not publicly accessible, the Office of the Auditor-General provides oversight by auditing and reporting on the ministry’s financial statements as required by law [1]. The Internal Audit function at the MoD plays a crucial oversight role through various activities. Internal audit conducts systems and risk-based audits to ensure effective operations and risk management, while providing consulting services on governance frameworks and risk management. Additionally, it performs value-for-money audits to ensure efficient use of resources and reviews budgetary processes and financial reports to verify alignment with strategic objectives. The unit is staffed by professionals with appropriate training in public financial management [1]. However, a SIPRI report higlights the need to improve the capacities of oversight institutions, and strengthen internal and external control mechanisms within the MoD [4].
The function is also responsible for evaluating accounts and financial statements before submission to the Auditor General, as well as analysing periodic financial returns submitted to Treasury, which include expenditure, revenue, and asset reports [3]. The Public Audit Act PFM Act 2012 (section 73 paragraph 5) provides for every national government public entity to establish an audit committee whose composition and function shall be as prescribed by the regulations [2]. All officers in Accounts across ministries in Governments, Finance, Internal Audits are seconded by National Treasury and each ministry, as a requirement, has an internal audit committee [3].
While reports are not publicly available, little evidence suggests that recommendations from internal audits are regularly acted upon, and form part of a continuous improvement loop within MoD financial management [4].

There are instances where information required by parliament has not been provided on security grounds. Parliament has many tools that they use to conduct oversight, including questions, statements, vetting during public appointments, motions, special motions, public petitions, and summons to the house [1].
Hon. Aden Duale, the Defence Cabinet Secretary, refused to provide a detailed breakdown of KDF’s expenditure for the 2022/2023 financial year when he appeared before the National Assembly’s Committee on Defence and Foreign Relations. According to the report presented to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary only disclosed that KDF spent:
• Ksh98 billion on emoluments and salaries
• Ksh28 billion on operational costs of military bases, including food
• Ksh1.7 billion on maintenance of major parts and equipment
• Ksh1 billion on civil aid
• Ksh1 billion on border security
• Ksh4 billion on modernisation of KDF equipment.

There is no evidence that internal audit reports are routinely shared with oversight bodies [3]. When shared, they are often in summary or redacted form. The Ministry of Defence tends to rely on broad expenditure categories (e.g. emoluments, operations, modernisation) that limit detailed examination [4].

The Auditor General examines the effectiveness of internal audits and provides opinions on their performance. When internal audit functions are missing or ineffective, the OAG report highlights these weaknesses. Internal auditors, seconded from the Ministry of Finance, are generally well-qualified for their roles [1, 2]. However, recent cases have raised concerns about the efficacy of internal audits. A significant irregularity in an Sh8.9bn military food tender has prompted questions about audit effectiveness. Additionally, the Auditor General identified issues within a Ministry of Defence-affiliated agency. The audit report for the Space Agency revealed several problems, including the absence of an internal audit function, expired terms for Board Members, and delays in staff recruitment despite existing approvals [3]. These findings indicate that while scrutiny mechanisms exist, their implementation and effectiveness may need further evaluation and improvement. The discrepancies between the presence of qualified personnel and the occurrence of irregularities suggest a need for a more robust audit system and better oversight mechanisms [4].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. Section 172 of the Internal Audit Regulations requires internal auditors to ensure there is enforcement of Internal Audit recommendations [1].
However, publicly available examples of internal audit recommendations being addressed are lacking. Most examples in the public domain come from external audits. For instance, the Auditor General’s report on the Kenya Ordinance Factories Corporation (June 2021 and 2022) identified persistent issues in budget control, which were still unresolved after one year [2]. Similarly, the audit of the Kenya Space Agency highlighted lack of an internal audit function and unaddressed governance gaps [3].
These suggest that some recommendations, particularly external, are not followed through in practice.

In Liberia, the effectiveness of internal audit processes within the Ministry of National Defense (MoD) remains limited. The Internal Audit Agency (IAA) has faced challenges in implementing audits within the MoD. While the IAA has made progress in other sectors, such as deploying auditors to the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs, there is no public record of similar deployments within the MoD.[1][2] The IAA has been proactive in enhancing the skills of its auditors, offering training programs and pursuing professional qualifications.[3] Despite these efforts, there are no records of cooperation from the MoD with internal audits.
Regarding the National Security Agency (NSA), there have been audits of the NSA (alongside its inspector general as the designated person for internal audit) and recommendations for internal controls were offered. For instance, President Joseph Boakai initially mandated the General Auditing Commission (GAC) to conduct audits of the NSA, the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL), and the Executive Protection Service (EPS) for the period between 2018 and 2023. However, reports indicate that the audit of the NSA was later rescinded due to concerns over the sensitivity of its operations.[4] These developments highlight some challenges in establishing effective internal audit mechanisms within Liberia’s defence and security sectors despite audit staff expertise.

There is no evidence of enabling oversight of the internal audit function of the Ministry of Defense (MoD) by parliamentary committees.[1]
The General Auditing Commission (GAC) has conducted audits of the MoD, revealing significant financial irregularities. For instance, between fiscal years 2013/2014 and 2016/2017, the MoD spent US$5.8 million without supporting documentation, such as payment vouchers or invoices. The GAC also noted that the MoD failed to provide a full list of contributions and donations received. Furthermore, there was no evidence of monthly bank reconciliations for the MoD’s accounts during the audited periods. Due to significant scope limitations, the GAC was unable to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit conclusion.[2]
Despite these findings, there is no indication that parliamentary oversight committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, have effectively used these audit reports to enforce accountability or implement measures. There is no internal auditor deployed at the Ministry of National Defense, which impacts the oversight bodies to perform their functions effectively.[3]

There is a scope limitation in the external audit of the internal audit function in the defence ministry expenditure. According to the GAC, based on previous expenditure inconsistencies found in the financial audits, due to significant scope limitations, the GAC was not able to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to provide a basis for an audit conclusion.[1] A testimony from a previous senior role revelaed at the IAA that they were not allowed to deploy audits as they do across MACs. Furthermore, there is no evidence regarding new information about the internal audit report at the Ministry of National Defense.[2] The lack thereof makes the external scrutiny process less rigorous, as there is little baseline data available for external scrutiny to take place.[3]

The IAA is mandated to establish and direct internal audit functions across the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches of government.[1] In the security sector, internal audits have been conducted within the Arms Commission, Liberia Immigration Services, and the National Security Agency, among other agencies. The Defence Ministry, as explained earlier, rejected the idea of an internal audit. To date, an internal audit has not been redeployed. Accordingly, problems identified by GAC external audit remain recurrent and intractable, as they persist.[2][3]

There is not enough information to score this indicator. The Ministry of the Armed Forces has a department responsible for control and audits, the Bureau Contrôle et Audit des Armées (BCAA,) in charge with the internal audit of the armed forces’ expenditure and accounts. The BCAA is under the authroty of the Major Général des Armée. There is very little information publicly available on the reailty of the internal audit or on the suitability of the budget or staff expertise. [1]

No information on the Ministry of Defence’s Control and Audit Office is publicly available which prevents the scoring of the indicator. [1] [ 2]

The Court of Auditors is the main authority responsible for auditing ministries. However, since 2017, its reports have not included the financial statements of the Ministry of Defense. Moreover, there is no publicly information about the Ministry of Defence’s Control and Audit Department’s report being published nor that the Court of auditors is scrutinising its work which prevents the scoring of the indicator. [1] [2]

No information on the Ministry of Defence’s Control and Audit Office is publicly available which prevents the scoring of the indicator. [1] [2]

Control and audit structures very rarely intervene to control and/or audit the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs. The Inspectorate General of the Armed Forces and Services (IGAS) has an internal control mandate of both management and operational control but does not carry out audits as such. Moreover, the reports of the general inspection of the armed forces and services and the police inspection are not made public. There are also no evidence of the work of the Inspectorate on defence expenditure on the Armed Forces’ website.[1] Only reports mention the role of the IGAS in operational capabilities audits rather than defence spending.[2][3]

There is no evidence of an internal audit of defence ministry expenditure, this sub-indicator should be marked Not as Applicable.[1][2]

There are no traces of external control of the internal audit function concerning the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence. There is also no trace or information on an audit or an external control carried out by an audit or control body since the incident involvimng the purchase of the presidential plane and military equipment by the office of the general auditor in 2019, so this indicator is marked as Not Applicable. [1][2]

There is no internal audit of the defence ministry’s expenditure, and no internal audit report of the Ministry of Defence’s spending has been made public.[1]

The National Defence Inspectorate is responsible for ensuring oversight and accountability within the Ministry of National Defence. Its key functions include:
• Conducting inspections, investigations, and inquiries in accordance with the law. Audits are carried out as part of the work plan or as directed by the Minister of National Defence [1].
• Verifying compliance with legal obligations imposed on defence bodies and services, as required by law or by ministerial directive [1].
• Conducting studies and assessments to produce reports and recommendations within its mandate [1].
• Ensuring adherence to existing legal provisions, ministerial directives, and orders [1].
• Identifying and addressing irregularities by recommending corrective measures and monitoring their resolution [1].
However, not all staff members at the General Inspectorate of Defence possess the necessary technical expertise to carry out their duties effectively [2]. Nevertheless, their oversight efforts have contributed to greater transparency and integrity within internal processes. Additionally, their findings have influenced other ministries, such as the Ministry of Economy and Finance, to improve and rationalise financial resource allocation for the Defence Sector [3].
At the end of each year, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Mozambique holds an annual meeting of Inspectors from the Army, Air Force, and Navy. This meeting assesses inspection, control, and performance evaluation activities of military units, bodies, and training institutions [2,3].
While oversight mechanisms exist, the Inspectorate lacks the full capacity to prevent or prosecute all recent scandals within the Ministry.

The inspections are carried out for sensitive or critical issues related to human resources, financial resources and operational issues, but are for the exclusive use of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces [1]. The information of inspections is shared with the Parliament when they request it or during the Defence, Security and Public Order Committee inspections [2, 3]. However, such information only comprises non-operational information [4], such as training human resources or rehabilitating general infrastructures.

Internal audit reports and Armed Forces documents are classified as “Secret” under the State Secrets Law [1, 2]. These reports are rarely shared with legitimate external audit bodies. When disclosure does occur, it is in the form of summaries or community press statements, written or presented orally by staff from the Defence Policy Directorate Sector of the Ministry of National Defence. These summaries are sometimes made available on the Ministry of National Defence’s website [3]. Despite this secrecy, Kroll’s audits into Mozambique’s “hidden debts” scandal were made public. The 2017 Kroll report, commissioned by the Attorney General’s Office, investigated $2 billion in undisclosed state-backed loans taken by state-owned defence companies for maritime security purposes [4]. The audit exposed financial irregularities, including unaccounted funds, overpricing, and lack of transparency in defence-related procurement. However, this oversight was an exception rather than the norm.

In terms of institutional outcomes, the internal audits is carried out by the National Defence Inspectorate and there are very few cases of disclosure of the results of supervisions, audits and inspections by the Ministry of National Defence and the Armed Forces of Mozambique [1]. Since the beginning of counter-insurgency operations in Cabo Delgado, the staff of the General Inspectorate of Defence have carried out several works and issued press releases, but without specific and concrete details and results of the inspections [2, 3]. During interviews with the staff of the Defence Inspectorate and Defence Policy, it was mentioned that the results of administrative, operational and acquisition inspections have been integrated by the Ministry of National Defence and the Armed Forces to improve their performance in fulfilling their mission, objectives and responsibilities set out in the Defence Policy and the Law of the Armed Forces and National Defence, in the transparency and careful management of the resources allocated to the Defence Sector [4, 5]. For example, in 2021, during the inspection carried out at the Samora Machel Military Academy, the Inspector General of the Armed Forces stated that the institution was complying with the recommendations of previous inspections. The assessment was good and there was room for improvement in processes and procedures [6].

There is limited evidence to suggest that an effective internal audit process exists for the Ministry of Defence’s expenditure in Niger. The defence Ministry’s internal oversight body, the Office of the Inspector General of the Armed Forces (IGA/GN), is tasked with ensuring that administrative, financial, and budgetary rules are followed and that public resources are managed transparently, efficiently, and cost-effectively [1]. However, there is no specific information indicating that the IGA/GN conducts effective audits focused explicitly on defence ministry expenditure. Despite its broad mandate, the IGA/GN’s ability to conduct effective audits remains unclear, particularly in terms of transparency, professional expertise, and independence [2]. Additionally, parliamentary oversight is absent following the dissolution of the National Assembly after the military coup of July 26, 2023, further limiting the scope for effective audit and accountability processes

The National Assembly’s standing committee on defence and security was tasked with overseeing the work of ministries responsible for national defence and security policy (see question 2 for details) [1]. However, according to an interviewee, between 2018 and July 26, 2023, the committee was not provided with any detailed reports from internal oversight bodies auditing the Ministry of defence’s expenditures [2]. On July 26, 2023, the military announced the removal of the President and the establishment of the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP), effectively dissolving the National Assembly. This development has eliminated any possibility of oversight.

According to interviewees, audit reports, if they were ever produced, were not shared with any external organizations, such as HALCIA, Transparency International, or UNODC [1][2]. On July 26, 2023, the military announced the removal of the President and the establishment of the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP), effectively dissolving the National Assembly. This development has eliminated any possibility of legislative oversight.

No information on precise institutional outcomes as a result of the internal audit has been found. The scandal that broke out following the audit of the Ministry of Defense in 2020 did not result in any substantial institutional reforms [1][2].

The Directorate of Finance and Administration is responsible for internal audits at the Ministry of Defence. Audits cover records of revenues and expenditure, cash and store, accounts kept by other units and formations of services, and the civil department of the MOD. One of its critical functions is to provide monthly, quarterly, half yearly and annual reports to Management, Accountant-General of the Federation, Permanent Secretary, Auditor-General for the Federation and other relevant agencies. The Unite claims that through its Audit Report to various stakeholders, suggestions and recommendations are made in order to achieve the overall objective of the Ministry [1]. However, it was difficult to obtain any evidence of technical competency of the Unit given the secrecy that characterise the operations of the MOD. The outcome of an audit in the recent past does suggest that there is a history of non-adherence to due process and the Public Procurement Act, 2007 requirement by the ministry before a contract is awarded to a contractor [2].

Concerning the internal audit process, the Ministry of Defence has an Internal Audit Department with the responsibility of inspecting and monitoring the use of all resources in compliance with the Government Rules and Regulations, Policies and Procedures, and provision of our Audit Report to various stakeholders, among others [1]. In addition, the Auditor-General’s Office acts as a buffer between the internal audit process and the parliamentary oversight institutions. In the face of infrequent nature of reports by oversight bodies such as the Office of the Auditor-General, the NASS is less inclined to have an interest in the internal audit process of the Ministry of Defence or perform its oversight responsibilities on some sensitive or critical issues of defence expenditure. For instance, the Nigerian Senate in July 2024 rejected an amendment to a motion urging the upper chamber to oversight and monitor all appropriations to ensure that funds allocated for security purposes, particularly for the procurement of weapons, are not diverted for other uses [2]. The rejection of the amendment means that the Senate will not mandate its committees to specifically oversee these appropriations at this time.

The auditor general’s report is in most instances released late. For example, the auditor general’s report for 2020 was submitted to the National Assembly in February 2024 [1]. The release of the report is coming three years after the financial year of the 2020 budget. By this release, the federal government has failed to comply with the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) provisions, 2007. Following the release of the report, there is little public debate or engagement with the content of the report. The Office of the Auditor General has not been working effectively due to a myriad of factors such as underfunding and understaffing which cripple its operations. Suboptimal performance of the Office invariably creates the room for all forms of financial infractions across the various MDAs [2].

External audits conducted by the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation (OAuGF) are submitted to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). While these reports consistently reveal financial irregularities across MDAs (including the MoD), such as illegal withdrawals and unaccounted funds, there is little evidence that internal audit recommendations are acted on meaningfully [1].

The MoD’s Internal Audit Unit, housed under the Permanent Secretary’s office, issues internal audit reports and recommendations. However, analysis of internal processes suggests these reports are rarely published or followed up, and recommendation implementation is minimal or opaque [2].
Therefore, while external audits highlight issues, the MoD fails to systematically translate internal audit findings into institutional reform, implementing only minor corrections, not strategic rebalancing.

Internal audit exists in all government departments and ministries, including the Ministry of Defence but they are not a specialised body. They are chosen from among the ministry’s staff and are therefore required to audit their colleagues. Moreorer, there are not sufficiently staffed and they lack staff or audit assistants. [1]

The Inspectorate General of the State’s agents do the control. At the end of their missions of inspection on almost all issues, State Inspectors-General draw up reports with relevant recommendations, which are submitted to the President of the Republic for approval and not the parlieament. Approved recommendations have the force of presidential directives. [1] State control bodies, especially those responsible for defence and security, make their reports available to the executive and not to the legislature for parliamentary scrutiny. It is only when the reports are published by decision of the President of the Republic that parliamentarians have access to them.[2]

Internal auditors only disclose information with the required authorisation unless a legal or professional obligation requires them to do so. External control bodies may also have access to this internal audit report. However the final report is given to the President of the Republic and not to members of Parliament. OFNAC uses the internal audit reports of public administration departments as part of its missio, including finding on the Ministry of Defence. An expert audit then confirms or refutes the results of the internal audit. [1][2]

All ministries, including the Ministry for Defence, are informed of the work carried out by their department’s internal audit department, including the recommendations they are required to implement to improve financial management. However since no information on internal audit is publicly available, it is difficult to assess if ihe MoD does address audit findinds in practice. Ministries, including the Ministry of Defence, do not always manage to incorporate the audit findings into their practices, or only make minor changes. [1] Within the office of the Minister for the Armed Forces, there is a unit responsible for measuring the implementation of the conclusions reached in the reports of the Inspectorate General of State, such as the audit report, and the other control bodies, as well as the recommendations approved by the Organisation and Method Office and those formulated by the Control Unit. [2]

The Department of Defence’s internal audit division works with the Department’s audit committee to prepare an annual Internal Audit Plan which identifies the unit’s work programme for the year in line with requirements under the Public Financial Management Act. [1] In the Department’s latest annual report, the internal audit division completed 34 out of the 37 projects identified in the 2022/2023 financial year. However, the audit committee and the Auditor-General of South Africa believed the internal control environment was largely inadequate and ineffective during the year under review citing ineffective implementation of fraud prevention measures as well as persistent delays in investigating and clearing irregular expenditure rendering accountability in the department ineffective. [2] Recurrent audit findings and the slow implementation of the Auditor-General’s recommendations are reflective of either a lack of staff expertise or a lack of commitment to address audit findings from political principals.

While audit outcomes and the implementation of the Department’s Audit Action Plan are a significant concern of relevant parliamentary committees, there is little attention given to the internal audit function or individual internal audit reports. [1] Only the names of internal audit projects are shared with the relevant parliamentary committees as in the Department Annual Reports. [2]

Internal audit reports prepared by the Internal Audit unit are reviewed by the Department’s Audit Committee as per the Public Finance Management Act and relevant regulations. [1] The Audit Committee is made up of members outside of the Department providing an element of external oversight of the internal audit function, but there is no evidence of these reports being proactively shared with the Auditor-General of South Africa. However, in terms of the Public Audit Act, the Auditor-General would have access to any departmental documentation required to review compliance with legislation. [2]

While an Audit Action Plan is prepared annually in consultation with the Audit Committee to address audit findings and deficiencies in the control environment, this is seemingly ineffective in producing institutional change. [1] The Auditor-General of South Africa has found that these action plans developed to address prior year audit findings were both inadequate and ineffectively implemented, resulting in recurring audit findings. [2] While the Department regularly commits to incorporating audit findings into its practices, the implementation of recommendations is seemingly ineffective. [3]

There is limited information available on the status of internal audits within the Ministry of Defence. Section 36(5) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act 2018 acknowledges the unique nature of security departments and the necessity for secrecy. The Act provides an alternative audit approach, stating that “restricted items shall be subject to a classified audit and submitted to the Transitional National Legislative Assembly in the reports of the Ministry and other Procuring Entities, as prescribed in the Public Financial Management and Accountability Act, 2011.” [1] However, a review of the activities of relevant legislative committees that should handle these internally audited reports reveals no mention of such activities. [2]

In addition to other institutions such as the Southern Sudan Anti-Corruption Commission and the National Audit Chamber of South Sudan, the Standing Specialised Committee on Defence and Veteran Affairs [1] of the Transitional National Legislative Assembly also has oversight powers on the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs. The committee receives reports on various aspects of the ministry which the discuss and make recommendations. However, not all reports are submitted to the committee. [2]

There is limited information available on the status of external audits within the Ministry of Defence. Section 36(5) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act 2018 acknowledges the unique nature of security departments and the necessity for secrecy. The Act provides an alternative audit approach, stating that “restricted items shall be subject to a classified audit and submitted to the Transitional National Legislative Assembly in the reports of the Ministry and other Procuring Entities, as prescribed in the Public Financial Management and Accountability Act, 2011.” However, a review of the activities of relevant legislative committees that should handle these internally audited reports reveals no mention of such activities. Similarly, there is no media reports on an external audit conducted on the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs [3].

A search on local, regional and international media showed no audits conducted by the Ministry have been released to the public between 2020 and 2024 [1]. However, a report by the National Audit Office reveals that whereas SSP 257,929,817 was transferred to the South Sudan People.
Defence Force (SSPDF) Divisions by MOFP, the allocated amount for June and July 2020 salary payments was SSP 258,226,313. This resulted in an excess payment over receipts of SSP 296,496. [2] The risk is that either the officers were overpaid or the money diverted. Despite this audit query, there is no evidence that the ministry responded to the accusations. [3]

The Internal Audit Department of the Ministry is mandated to carry out risk-based audits and value-for-money reviews [1]. The external audit office, OAG, regularly publishes consolidated audit reports that include findings from MoDVA based on information provided by internal audit teams [2][3].
However, concerns remain regarding the effectiveness and independence of this function. The internal audit unit reports within the UPDF’s chain of command, raising questions about its ability to critically examine sensitive expenditures without interference [4]. The review of UPDF audits and investigations by the PAC is essential, but its effectiveness is contingent on the quality and reliability of the information it receives. If the internal audits are compromised, the ability to hold the UPDF accountable to the PAC is also diminished [5]. Therefore, while internal audit processes and parliamentary oversight mechanisms are in place, the concerns raised about the internal effectiveness and independence of the audits are valid and require attention to ensure accountability.

The Ministry of Defence operates a formal internal audit function and benefits from the Ministry of Finance’s internal oversight program, which offers audit, inspection, and advisory services to armed forces institutions, including UPDF [1][2]. However, there is no evidence that internal audit reports are proactively shared with Parliament or the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee [3][4]. Instead, parliamentary oversight is driven by external audit outputs, the Auditor General’s reports, which are submitted to Parliament and used during committee hearings [3]. Parliamentary committee meeting summaries indicate that defence sector audit queries are discussed, but these appear to reference OAG outputs—not internal audit reports[5]. While external audits are auditable by lawmakers, sensitive internal audit findings may not reach oversight bodies in unredacted or timely formats for effective scrutiny.

The external scrutiny provided by the Auditor General, as mandated by the constitution, forms a critical pillar of accountability within the defence sector.
The internal audit reports from MoDVA are submitted to the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) as part of mandatory financial disclosures. This indicates the MoDVA does share its internal audit findings externally, although not proactively [1] [2][3]. Moreover, The Ministry has shown openness to external audit services, as evidenced by its recent public Procurement of Consultancy Services from external audit firms to provide external audit services for the Eastern Africa Standby Force [4].
However, OAG reports regularly flag issues regarding weak internal controls like poor record keeping and failure to comply with procurement rules [1]. These are often only observed during OAG’s consolidated review, suggesting that the external scrutiny of internal audits tends to be indirect and superficial..

The Ministry of Defence in Uganda has an internal audit function, and MoFPED provides broader Internal Oversight & Advisory Services aimed at reinforcing internal controls and audit capacity across MDAs, including security sectors [1][2]. However, no sources confirm the scope or effectiveness of internal audit outputs for MoD during the 2020–2025 period.
By contrast, external oversight bodies such as the PPDA and the Auditor General provide more recent institutional evidence, showing that the Ministry failed to implement five out of six procurement-related recommendations in FY 2022/23, and that budget execution cannot be adequately measured due to the absence of key performance indicators [3][4]. This suggests that while the Ministry of Defence acknowledges audit findings, the incorporation of both internal and external audit recommendations into practice remains inconsistent.

The internal audit exists in the Zimbabwe defence forces under the inspectorate unit [1]. However, the internal audit within the military is not effective because military expenditure is closely tied to the actions and decisions of army chiefs [2]. Internal audits are generally conducted by junior officers, particularly non-commissioned officers, who lack authority over their commanders [2]. The internal auditing (if ever they are conducted), must be signed off by the very commanders who may be implicated in corruption. Hence, it is difficult to even think of commanders signing reports which implicate them in any corruption activity [2]. The four army Generals who were alleged to have been involved in corruption [3], highlights the weaknesses in the internal auditing process, as it is difficult for junior officers to report or challenge their own superiors.

The inspectorate unit, which is responsible for internal auditing within the defence forces, reports directly to the Commander Defence Forces, while at brigade level, each unit’s inspectorate section reports to the Brigade Commander [1]. This reporting structure has been criticised for stifling accountability and transparency, as commanders who may themselves be implicated in poor budget management or procurement irregularities oversee the very audits intended to hold them accountable [2].
There is no oversight by parliamentary committees over these internal audit reports. The audit findings do not reach the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence or Parliament, and therefore sensitive or critical issues identified during audits are not scrutinised by any external or enabling oversight bodies [1]. Even when audit irregularities are uncovered, there is no evidence that these findings are systematically followed up or subjected to independent scrutiny.

There is a legal provision to subject internal audits in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to external scrutiny, as required by the Public Finance Management Act (2010). In principle, the MoD is expected to submit its internal audit findings and financial accounts to the Auditor General of Zimbabwe for external review [1].
However, in practice, this process is constrained. The military does not always disclose complete or itemised budgets, limiting the Auditor General’s ability to assess internal audit findings in detail and to produce clear, comprehensive reports [2]. This is confirmed by appropriation account reviews from the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), which frequently note restricted access to supporting documents and defence expenditure records, particularly for classified items [4]. Moreover, internal audit reports are not proactively shared with external bodies beyond the formal submission required by law. Even when the Auditor General is given access, certain areas of defence expenditure remain off-limits, and reports seldom contain sufficient detail to scrutinise sensitive issues effectively [2]. The Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) also has the mandate to investigate corruption in the defence sector, but it has been largely ineffective. Its limited authority over classified defence matters, coupled with perceptions of political interference (e.g., its leadership ties to senior military figures), has weakened its role [3].

In instances where recommendations or observations are made by both internal and external auditors, implementing them proves challenging due to the secretive nature of the defence forces, particularly the military. This lack of transparency often leads to recommendations being dismissed as threats to national security [1]. The Ministry of Defence and the Zimbabwe Defence Forces are likely aware of corrupt activities involving senior defence personnel, yet there are concerns at a perceived lack of action taken against those suspected [2]. For instance, despite allegations of housing corruption involving one of the top three army generals, Major General Mupande, he was subsequently promoted to Lieutenant General [2].
Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence, like other ministries, is led by political appointees. The current minister, Oppah Muchinguri, has close ties to the defence forces due to her role as a former commander during the liberation war [3].
Similarly, institutional outcomes remain minimal, as illustrated by a recent case reported in the media involving four top army generals implicated in a USD 4 million housing corruption scandal.