Neither the Public Procurement Code nor the decree setting out the terms and conditions for the award of defence contracts requiring secrecy prohibits, authorises or regulates the use of offset contracts [1] [2]. The government does not use this form of contract [3].

Neither the Public Procurement Code nor the decree setting out the terms and conditions for the award of defence contracts requiring secrecy prohibits, authorises or regulates the use of offset contracts [1] [2]. The government does not use this form of contract [3].

There is no law in Burundi prohibiting offset contracts [1] [2].

There are no particular or specific anti-corruption requirements imposed by the government in relation to offset contracts [1] [2].

There is no law or known policy that regulates offset contracts.[1][2]

Cameroon has not explicitly prohibited offset contracts in the defence sector. It has neither defined them nor scheduled a legal provision related to this commercial practice.[1][2]

Defence offset contracts are not regulated within the legal framework for public procurement in Côte d’Ivoire [1].

Defence offset contracts are not regulated within the legal framework for public procurement in Côte d’Ivoire [1].

In Ghana, there are no laws or policies that mention offset contracts as part of procurement processes or anti-corruption safeguards (1).

There is no available sources to establish contract offsetting even if in theory it exist because there are no legal provisions made for same and there are no reported cases of such (1)(2)(3).

Offset contracts are not explicitly mentioned or regulated in Kenya’s Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (PPADA) of 2015 or in any other national procurement law. There is no legal or policy framework that either prohibits or formally governs the use of offsets in Kenya, including in the defence sector [2].

While Kenya is not a party to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), its general procurement policies align with international principles of fair competition and transparency. However, this alignment is de facto — not supported by explicit legislation regarding offsets. The existing legal framework does not provide any guidelines on structuring, evaluating, or enforcing offset obligations within public or defence procurement [2].

Parliamentary reports and Defence Cooperation Agreements indicate that Kenya often relies on bilateral procurement arrangements in the defence sector. Some of these may include offset-like features (e.g., local capacity-building or technology transfer), but these are not governed by a national offset policy. As such, Kenya appears to manage offsets on an ad hoc basis without transparent rules or requirements [3].

There is no specific evidence that due diligence is undertaken in relation to offset contracts in Kenya. The 10th Parliament’s Defence and Foreign Relations Committee in 2011 recommended that the Ministry of State for Defence undertake due diligence on all companies bidding for defence contracts. However, the report made no reference to offset obligations, nor was any offset-specific due diligence framework established or subsequently reported as implemented [2].

While general procurement laws (such as the PPADA 2015) require procuring entities to assess the capacity and qualifications of suppliers, there is no legal or institutional mechanism requiring due diligence specifically for offset proposals — such as evaluating the credibility of promised local investments, technology transfers, or industrial participation [1].

There is no specification in the PPCC Law regarding offset contracts. Offset contracting is not covered by Act.[1]

General anti-corruption/due diligence requirements exist under the PPCC, but they apply to all procurement/concessions, not to offsets [1]. While Liberia has general anti-corruption and auditing mechanisms for procurement, they do not extend to offsets, as offsets are not a recognised instrument under Liberian procurement law.

A legal vacuum exists regarding compensation contracts in Madagascar. The law establishing the Public Procurement Code does not mention them [1]. The official website of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority makes no mention of it either [2]. This is also the case for Law No. 2016-020 on the fight against corruption [3].

The Public Procurement Code does not mention the existence of compensation markets [1].

There is no law or policy governing offset contracts. In fact, There is no trace of this type of contract in the legislation (public procurement code, etc) accessible on the General Secretariat of the Government.[1]

There are no formal policies and procedures related to offset contracts.[1]

Mozambique has a defence equipment/armament regulation (Decree 34/2007) and a general procurement regime (Decree 5/2016). The Decree 34/2007 of 10 August approves the Regulation on Equipment and Armament of the Defence and Security Forces in Mozambique [2]. The Article 19 of Regulation on Equipment and Armament of the Defence and Security Forces in Mozambique provides for the transfer of technology and compensation in the offset contracts of the Defence and Security Forces in the following terms: the transfer of technology of equipment of the Defence and Security Forces complies with the rules established in the respective contracts and, in the absence of these, the rules of International Law [3].

The Regulation on Equipment and Armament of the Defence and Security Forces in Mozambique [1], the Regulation for the Contracting of Public Works, Supply of Goods and Provision of Services to the State [2] and the Mozambican Commercial Code [3] make no mention of due diligence in the processes for the acquisition of defence and security products.

Niger does not have any legal framework or policy regulating offset contracts in defence procurement. A review of the 2013 decree on defence and security procurement found no provisions addressing offset agreements, nor any mention of corruption risk mitigation measures related to such contracts [1]. Additionally, there is no evidence that Niger has engaged in formal offset agreements within its defense procurement practices [2]. Given the lack of legal regulation and oversight mechanisms, there is no indication that anti-corruption due diligence is imposed on contractors or third parties in the context of offsets.

Niger does not impose any anti-corruption due diligence or auditing requirements on offset contracts. A review of the 2013 decree on defence and security procurement found no legal provisions regulating offset agreements, nor any requirement for contractors or third parties to undergo anti-corruption vetting or audits [1]. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Niger has ever engaged in offset contracts, making it unclear how such agreements would be monitored or controlled if they were introduced . [2]. The absence of a legal framework, oversight mechanisms, and due diligence processes significantly increases the risk of corruption and non-transparent procurement practices in defence acquisitions.

Given that the PPA 2007 does not apply to special goods and services such as weapons acquisitions, details of offset arrangements are difficult to determine. Offset contracts are mainly the subject of inter-government contractual negotiations in the interest of national security [1]. But China’s growing defence supplies to Nigeria is raising local concerns about offset contracts. Shipments in the past year to Nigeria of armoured personnel carriers, battle tanks and light tanks, as well as various types of artillery from China suggest it aims to become the dominant defence supplier to Nigeria over the next three years, overtaking both Russia and the US. Hence, it is engaging with Nigeria’s ministry of defence to support local production of military equipment in Nigeria, which can benefit Chinese corporations based in Nigeria [2]. However, “local anti-corruption groups have warned about the lack of accountability in most arms deals, particularly this which involve local cost-offset arrangements where the supplier agree to transfer technology to local manufacturers over an extended period” [3].

Nigeria’s defence budget has steadily increased since Buhari’s first term in 2015 as has the total national budget. This has enabled expansive defence acquisitions in recent times. However, Nigeria is seeking to boost its defence industry base and acquiring technological transfer by collaborating with Chinese firm such as Luan Steel Holding Group [1] as well as US military firm, NEANY [2]. Generally, it is not known what specific due diligence requirements the Nigerian government imposes on offset contractors that may have benefited from its growing importation of military hardware and planned cooperation with foreign corporations to boost its local defence industry.

According to Article 97 of the Public Procurement Code, the government prohibits the payment of any sum, whether lump sum or not, in exchange for the agreement to submit to an obligation complementary to those covered by the contract. However, the Charter of Ethics and Responsible Public Procurement requires a commitment by the candidate, when submitting his bid, whereby the future contractor acknowledges that he will have to perform the contract in compliance with applicable legislation, failing which he will incur contractual liability, without prejudice to any other liability and condemnation [1] .

The government explicitly prohibits offset contracts [1] . Therefore this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

While offset agreements occur, South Africa does not have a legal or regulatory framework either prohibiting or permitting offsets [1]. It is worth noting that the National Industrial Participation Programme (NIPP) is responsibleof the Industrial Participation Secretariat of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) oversees Industrial Participation (IP) [2]; however this is a programme rather than a regulatory policy.

While the South African government conducted some due diligence with regard to offset contracts and third party contractors, this was by no means effective in preventing companies with clear conflicts of interests in securing offset contracts. [1] In relation to the infamous “Arms Deal”, one of the beneficiaries of offsets was the brother of the official charged with acquisitions. [2]

There is no specific mention of regulations for offset contracts in important documents such as the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2018 [1], Public Financial Management and Accountability Act, 2011 [2], the South Sudan Penal Code Act, 2008 [3], and the Audit Chamber Act, 2011 [4].

South Sudan has struggled to enforce due diligence provisions despite some laws requiring companies to do so. For example, the 2009 Land Act states that investments on land should, “reflect an important interest for the community or people living in the locality,” similarly, the 2009 Investment Promotion Act and the 2012 Petroleum Act both outline certain regulations for companies however, these are not enforced. Indeed section 8 of the 2023 U.S State Department report on South Sudan confirms the gaps in adherence to due diligence by contractors, stating that “the government does not encourage adherence to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Afflicted and High-Risk Areas, and there are no functioning domestic measures related to such due diligence” [1]. The lack of domestic measures of proper due diligence is a limitation for South Sudan.

There is no legal framework or policy covering offset contracts in Uganda [1] [2].

There is no explicit legal or policy framework in Uganda that establishes offset-specific anti-corruption due diligence requirements. The UPDF Act and MoDVA procurement regulations do not define “offset contracts” or prescribe tailored due diligence procedures for such agreements. There was no evidence of offset contracts identified in the annual audit reports [1] Interviews conducted with two senior UPDF officers confirm that offset arrangements are rare or non-existent in MoDVA procurement [2][3]. Therefore, no operational due diligence practice is in place.

The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act which is the guiding statute does not provide specifications for offset contracts [1] [2].

No information is provided to show that there is due diligence on offset contracts [1] The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act does not refer to offset contracts [2]. However, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act provides the president with exemption powers which increases potential discretion and risk [2].