Q47.

Is there a Code of Conduct for all civilian personnel that includes, but is not limited to, guidance with respect to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities? Is there evidence that breaches of the Code of Conduct are effectively addressed?

47a. Code of conduct

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

47b. Transparency

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

47c. Enforcement

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

47d. Training

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

No evidence could be found that there is a Code of Conduct specifically for civilian personnel working in the defence sector. No information could be found on the website of the Ministry of Defence (1). The Statute for Military Personnel, which was mentioned in question 48, explicitly does not apply to civilians. According to Art. 1, it applies to professional soldiers, contractors and military personnel performing national service (2). It might be possible that the rules written down in the Anti-Corruption Law of 2006 apply to civilians working in the military (3).

This question has been scored Not Applicable because no evidence could be found that there is a code of conduct specifically for civilian personnel working in the defence sector. No information could be found on the website of the Ministry of Defence (1). The Statute for Military Personnel, which was mentioned under question 48, does explicitly not apply to civilians (2).

This question has been scored Not Applicable because no evidence could be found that there is a code of conduct specifically for civilian personnel working in the defence sector. No information could be found on the website of the Ministry of Defence (1). The Statute for Military Personnel, which was mentioned in question 48, does not explicitly apply to civilians (2).

This question has been scored Not Applicable because no evidence could be found that there is a code of conduct specifically for civilian personnel working in the defence sector. No information could be found on the website of the Ministry of Defence (1). The Statute for Military Personnel, which was mentioned in question 48, does not explicitly apply to civilians (2).

The 2010 Law on Public Probity contains a general code of conduct (Chapter II) for all public servants, but there is a lack of guidance (1).

The 2010 Law on Public Probity is available to the public, but there is no indication that it is distributed to personnel.

The media and civil society organizations have often referred to the 2010 Law on Public Probity since it came into force, though the law has been poorly enforced. Since President Lourenço took office, there have been some public declarations of political will to implement the law on public probity (or at least some of its provisions). For instance, in March, the attorney general announced that public servants who failed to submit their declaration of assets (as required by the 2010 Law on Public Probity), would be held accountable (1), (2), (3).

There is no evidence that any training has been conducted.

The code of conduct in effect for military personnel does not apply to the civilians working for the MoD (Article 2 of the Law N° 038). Civilians in the MoD follow the code of conduct that applies to civil servants holding civil service positions (1). For civilian positions, the legal framework of the code of conduct encompasses a variety of binding instruments, of which the Law N° 081 (2015) and the decrees that apply, remains the most important. According to Article 1of Law N° 081 (2015), the provisions of the actual general status apply to civil servants, including civilians serving at the MoD. Article 2 says that the law does not apply to the military and paramilitary, magistrate, university teachers and researchers, etc. The obligations of civil servants or civilians within the MoD are enumerated in the Title III of Law N° 081 (2015), and civilian MoD personnel should comply with these obligations. For example, Article 48 says that “the civil servant including the defence ministry civilians must, at the office or outside, avoid any behaviour that may jeopardize the dignity and honour of [his/her] functions or those of the public service.” Possible sanctions for not complying with this provision of the law are enumerated under Article 49. Article 50, says that in addition to the obligations listed in Title III of the law, civil servants and, of course, defence ministry civilians, should comply with ethics rules and those pertaining to their profession adopted through a decree at the Council of Ministers (1), (2), (3).

The National Transitional Council adopted an anti-corruption law, the Law N° 004 (2015), which all civil servants, including defence ministry civilians, appointed or elected in some positions such president, member of parliament, minister, director and alike, should comply with. The military should also comply with the provisions of Law N° 004 (2015). The major focus of this law is that civil servants, military personnel, or elected or appointed officials in the above-mentioned positions, should declare their assets before taking office, as well as when their mandate or service ends (4). Hence, a code of conduct for civilians working for the MoD is available. However, there is not much guidance or specificity in it, which often leads to breaches.

The code of conduct in effect for civilians working for the MoD is unfortunately not readily available to all civilian personnel. Civilian MoD employees rarely have access to the code, even if requested. Again, this is the immediate effect of the lack of information at government institutions in general, and at the MoD, in particular, which the 2016 and 2018 Business Anti-Corruption Portal Report points out (1), (2). The lack of transparency due to the lack of information in the defence ministry was also pointed out by the Executive Secretary of the REN-LAC (3). However, guidance is often provided through capacity building.

According to Business Anti-Corruption Portal 2018, “weak enforcement of law, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult” (1), (3). Yet, investigations and prosecutions of government officials rarely occur (3). When they do take place it is likely because of disloyalty of the official in question or the case was in the public consciousness pressurizing the government to “offer up a political scapegoat” (3). Therefore, breaches on the code of conduct are only occasionally investigated.

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

The General Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service (1994) apply to civilian personnel within the defence and security sectors as well as for general public servants. According to Article 1, it applies to state employees who are civil servants [1].

The General Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service do not make mention of corruption [2,3]. Its Article 93 lists the types of conduct for which, if found guilty, public servants will face disciplinary and even penal sanctions. Article 93 contains malpractice, negligence of duties and obligations, and professional misconduct that undermines professional ethics, public morals and reputation [1]. The General Rules and Regulations (1994) is available online and in the ministries and public departments though it may not have been distributed to individual public servants [1].

A Business Anti-Corruption report states, “The Cameroonian Code of Ethics (in French) addresses conflicts of interest and provides regulations for the ethical conduct of civil servants in all public institutions. Civil servants and private-sector employees are not legally protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when they report cases of corruption. Cameroon’s National Anti-Corruption Agency (CONAC) reported that for its 2016 report, eleven ministries and agencies refused to supply them with information (Cameroon Intelligence Report, Dec. 2016), casting doubt on the agency’s ability to fight corruption” [4]. This shows that corruption in general is not sufficiently discouraged within the public service or in general.

The General Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service (1994) applies to civilian personnel within the defence and security sectors as well as it does for general public servants (Article 1) [1]. While is is made available in the ministries or departments, and online, it is not distributed to individual public servants [2] [3]. Furthernore, it is not effectively implemented and even when sanctions take place it is not made known to the public [2] [3]. According to the U.S. Department of State, “Although the government took some steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, or punish officials who committed human rights abuses in the security forces and in the public service, it did not often make public these proceedings, and some offenders, including serial offenders, continued to act with impunity” [4].

The General Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service (1994) applies to civilians working in the Ministry of Defence and security officers (Article 1) [1], but this code covers conflicts of interest and related misconduct without specifically mentioning corruption [1]. However, civilians working in the Ministry of Defence are covered under the category of civil servants and are subject to Article 134 of Law No. 77/23 of 6 December 1977, which criminalizes corruption [2]. Civilians working in the Ministry of Defence and security sectors charged with corruption and embezzlement can be charged in both civilian and military courts, or in a special court created to try corrupt government officials.

A Business Anti-Corruption report states, “The Cameroonian Code of Ethics (in French) addresses conflicts of interest and provides regulations for the ethical conduct of civil servants in all public institutions. Civil servants and private-sector employees are not legally protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when they report cases of corruption. Cameroon’s National Anti-Corruption Agency (CONAC) reported that for its 2016 report, eleven ministries and agencies refused to supply them with information (Cameroon Intelligence Report, Dec. 2016), casting doubt on the agency’s ability to fight corruption” [3]. This shows that corruption in general is not sufficiently discouraged within the public service or in general.

As an example of the prevalence of corruption in Cameroon (all sectors included) and insufficient enforcement mechanisms, the 2017 GAN report stated that “Corruption is endemic in Cameroon…. Bribery, nepotism, and corruption are rife in almost all sectors of the Cameroonian government and economy;… Cameroon’s public services represent an area of high risk of corruption. Bribery, abuse of office and embezzlement are widespread in the public administration. Administrative positions are usually appointed based on personal and business connections as well as political allegiance instead of merit (BTI 2016). The legal and regulatory systems are non-transparent and difficult… In addition, there exists a lack of effective regulations, insufficient law enforcement and significant delays in courts. Cameroon’s Penal Code (in French) criminalizes corruption, bribery, extortion, and bribery of foreign public officials, and corruption is punishable by a prison term of five years to life, a fine of up to USD 4,000 and/or asset seizure. Facilitation payments and gifts are also addressed in Cameroon’s legislation, yet insufficient implementation of anti-corruption legislation coupled with impunity among public officials has exacerbated the levels of corruption in the country” [3].

The General Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service is taught during training and made available in the ministries or departments and online [1], [2].

Order No. 2013-660 serves as a broad-based anti-corruption law whose scope of application includes the military and, by extension, civilian personnel employed by the MoD. Though it covers bribery, gifts and conflicts of interest, it does not refer to post-separation activities because it is not specific to military personnel.

Order No. 2013-660 (Relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées) of 20 September 2013 serves as clear and comprehensive guidance for public officials concerning bribery, gifts and hospitality and conflicts of interest. In Title 1 (Dispositions Générales), Chapter 1 (Définitions), Article 1, the scope of Order No. 2013-660 includes military personnel:

“Art. 1 – For the purposes of this order, the following terms mean: (1)
– public administration, all bodies, institutions and public services created by the laws and regulations in force;
– a public official, any natural person who holds an elected, executive, administrative, military, paramilitary or judicial mandate, whether he has been appointed or elected, permanently or temporarily, whether he is paid or not, and whatever the hierarchical level is.
• any person who performs a public service, including for a state institution or a state enterprise, or provides a public service;
• any person in charge, even occasionally, of a service or public service mission, acting in the exercise or the occasion of its functions;
• any public or ministerial officer;
• any agent, servant, or clerk of any other corporation public law or a public or ministerial officer” (1).

Order No. 2013-660, Sub-Section II, Articles 12 and 13 explicitly state that the Order should be considered a general code of conduct for civil servants (Codes de Conduite des Agents Publics) (1). The order penalizes the active and passive bribery of a public official through payments, gifts or benefits, as well as the acceptance of a bribe by a public official to carry out (or not to carry out) action as a public official. Penalties include 5-10 years of prison and a fine of 5 to 10 million FCFA (1).

The Order covers issues of bribery (offres, promesses, dons, présents ou avantage quelconque) in Articles 28-30. The acceptance of gifts (cadeaux) is covered in Sub-Section 5 (Cadeaux), Article 57. Conflicts of interest (conflits d’intérêt) are covered in Sub-Section Sub-Section 1 (Conflits d’Intérêt), Article 52. As mentioned above, there is no reference to post-separation activities in Order No. 2013-660 (1). According to TI’s Ant-Corruption Helpdesk from March 14, 2016, Order No. 2013-660 encourages public institutions to adopt their codes of conduct for their civil servants to address issues of corruption in the public administration more effectively. This could signal a certain weakness of Order No. 2013-660 to serve as an across-the-board code of conduct for all ministries (2). Order No. 2013-660 is meant as a code of conduct for all civil servants and that military and paramilitary personnel are included within its scope of application. It explains most of the corruption risks except for the post-separation activities that may apply to MoD civilian personnel.

Order No. 2013-660 (Relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées) has been available to public officials as an anti-corruption code of conduct for five years as of 2018. Order No. 2013-660 is readily available to civilian personnel at the MoD and its scope of application includes officials serving as “military or paramilitary” in the public administration, as shown in 47A. The full-text version of the order, with the sections covering bribery, gifts and conflicts of interest among public servants, can be uploaded online through open sources (1).

In terms of public awareness and general transparency, the provisions in Order No. 2013-660 have been widely distributed and publicized by Ivorian and international media, as well as through workshops and training set up by the High Authority for Good Governance (HABG) throughout Côte d’Ivoire. For example, HABG organized an awareness-raising workshop in Yamoussoukro on June 1, 2016, to discuss how the Order could tackle specific corruption risks more effectively. The workshop was initiated to propose draft legislation that would allow for the application of articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 22 of the Order No. 2013-660 (2). In terms of effective distribution (criteria for a score of 4) or the anti-corruption guidance during induction training (criteria for a score of 3), there is no evidence of this in open sources. There are shortcomings of Order No. 2013-660 to serve as an explicit and targeted code of conduct for civilian personnel at the MoD.

There is no concrete evidence that breaches of Order No. 2013-660 were investigated among civilian personnel at MoD. However, there is evidence of investigations in other branches of government. For broad-based corruption offenses contained in Order No. 2013-660 (Relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées), it appears that enforcement is weaker and a lower level of investigation is applied than for disciplinary issues among military officers, as has been shown by the action taken by the Executive to early retire or oust the military officers behind in the 2017 soldier uprisings. For example, on September 14, 2018, the government website (www.gouv.ci) reported that Public Prosecutor Christophe Richard Adou had announced legal proceedings against individuals accused by HABG of corruption as per Order No. 2013-660. According to the report, there were 15 cases involved, three of which were still being investigated by the judges and another twelve cases that were also pending an investigation. The cases involved influence peddling, misappropriation of public and private funds, illicit enrichment and money laundering. However, none of the cases implicated civilian personnel at the MoD (1).

According to TI’s Anti-Corruption Helpdesk from March 14, 2016, Order No. 2013-660 is not necessarily a signal that there is political will in Côte d’Ivoire to tackle corruption in the public administration. The report states that the country has a track record of adopting legislation without subsequently working on enforcement. The TI report stated:

“In September 2013, the government issued Order 2013-660 on preventing and combating corruption (for both public and private employees) with the support of UNDP… According to some observers, it is not yet certain that these measures are really a sign of a strong political will to fight against corruption and that they will attain the expected results. In the past, Côte d’Ivoire has demonstrated its ability to create laws and institutions that have not translated into concrete action” (2).

According to the 2018 Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI 2018), anti-corruption has featured prominently in President Ouattara’s agenda. But some of the anti-corruption measures such as Order No. 2013-660 lack teeth and cannot effectively sanction corrupt practices, much less in the politically sensitive defence sector (3).

An article from Libre Afrique by researcher Safiatou Ouattara stated:

“A National Plan on Good Governance and the Fight Against Corruption was launched in 2013 together with a new institution, the High Authority for Good Governance (HABG, operating since 2014). The effectiveness of Ouattara’s anti-corruption policies and institutions remains to be seen. The HABG is involved in official investigations and publishes annual reports about its activities in the field of prevention, awareness-raising and investigation. It is, however, not a judicial body which could effectively sanction corrupt practices” (4).

Order No. 2013-660 has been criticized for its lack of effectiveness concerning its asset disclosure provisions and its lack of independence vis-a-vis the Executive. According to an article published in Libre Afrique by researcher Safiatou Ouattara (December 20, 2017), the HABG would enjoy a greater level of transparency if it were attached to the NA instead of to the Executive (3).

There is no evidence that training on the code of conduct is provided to civilian personnel.

According to our sources, a new Code of Conduct was drafted and recognized by the Council of Ministers in 2014 for all civilian personnel and was made public. However, this Code of Conduct is mostly unavailable and unknown to employees and personnel (1), (2), (3), (4).

According to our sources, the Code of Conduct is not available always to all officers, and it is hard to find a copy of it in any of the ministries in most cases (1), (2), (3), (4).

According to our sources, as the code of conduct is not readily available, there is no enforcement mechanism, and therefore, it is not credible (1), (2), (3), (4).

There is no evidence that training is provided to civilian personnel on the Code of Conduct (1), (2), (3), (4).

Article 284 of Chapter 24 regulates conflict of interest for public officers (“A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office.”) (1). Additionally, the Public Officers (Disqualification and Assets Declaration) Act, 1998 (Act 550) requires certain categories of public officers to declare their assets and liabilities (2). However, the provisions are not very comprehensive (no mention of bribery, gifts and hospitality, and post-separation activities).

To enhance its anti-corruption education among public officers, the CHRAJ launched the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Guidelines (3) and adopted an internal Code of Conduct in 2010. Following CHRAJ’s example, other public institutions have adopted internal code of conducts, such as the Public Services Commission in 2014 (4).

However, Ghana failed so far to adopt the Conduct of Public Officers’ Bill, in parliament since 2014, which would provide a more comprehensive legal framework (5).

The code of conduct for public officers is publically available, but it is not clear how effectively it is distributed to all civilian personnel (1).

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

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

The code of conduct for public officers is publically available, but there is no evidence that training is provided to civilian personnel (1).

Online evidence reveals the existence of a Code of Conduct (2005) it was amended in 2006 (1). It sets out a series of instructions and standards to guide public and mixed sector workers. As the law state’s, employees to whom the code applies “shall sign the code of conduct”. Provision 9 forbids employees (civil servants and otherwise) from “accepting gifts or seeking benefits”, while provision ‘9’, issues warnings “not to dispose of [state] funds and assets without explicit authorization”. It is unclear whether the code applies to defence sector employees as there is no mention of this in the code.

The Code of Conduct is available online (1).

Citing “the absence of any implementing structure”, and the “malfeasance in office” and “central agency responsible for punishing breaches of the code” (1), the code, according to the legal source (2), has proven impossible to enforce. The most up-to-date statistics concerning bribery, gifts and hospitality, published by the UNDP (3) reveals that 60% of the 31,000 civil servants interviewed were offered bribes. Few structural reforms have resulted in any mass overhaul of the prevalent practice of bribery.

There is no evidence that training is provided to civilian personnel on the code of conduct.

There is a Code of Conduct for civilian personnel within the defence sector, but it does not include all items such as bribery, giving and recieving in detail. Rather it addresses ethical conduct in general [1]. It is the same for all other employees in the Government. It is published in every unit and available online in every ministerial website. The civilian employees in the armed forces are employed within the Minsitry of Defence, and therefore, the general Code of Conduct is applicable to them [2,3].

The Code of Conduct is widely available for all personnel, yet there is a lack of guidance within the minisiterial divisions and units. Personnel do not receive the code of conduct in the induction phase, but they are asked to sign on it the as part of the contract [1,2]. The code of conduct is also available on the ministries’ website.

The Code of Conduct is not a law per se, but violating it, just like engaging in bribery, stealing and abuse of power, can be investigated and potentially be punished. It is not throughly followed and enforced, but in case of grievous breaches or violations, investigations would be ineviatable. Howeer, prosecution is not guaranteed even if warranted by law [1,2].

There is no evidence that training is provided on the code of conduct [1,2].

There is a Code of Conduct for all civilian personnel in the security agencies, but it is also unavailable to the public, state auditors said (1, 2 and 3). That being said, the aforementioned article 14 of the military trials law applies to the civilian staffers, and so does the conflict of interest act (4 and 5). Both these laws address bribery and other conflicts of interest issues and, as laws, they outrank the Code.

The code is not available to the public, but the aforementioned laws are available to the public online, but it remains unclear whether they are distributed to all civilian personnel and whether guidance is provided, officials said (1, 2 and 3). All Government bodies, however, do hold one or two-day training workshops about integrity, which covers corruption.

The code is generally not used since most corrupt practices are alive and well and those behind them are never punished, officials and activists said (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). It is important to note, however, that the code and the laws are disrepected not because the legislation is weak but because there is a lack of political will to enforce them.

There is no evidance that training is provided to civilian personnel on the code of conduct.

There is no Code of Conduct for all civilian personnel working at the Ministry of National Defence or its departments, including the LAF (1). As mentioned in Q46, the LAF launched in, January 2019, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement that targets LAF military personnel (2).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as a Code of Conduct for civilians is not available (1).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as a Code of Conduct for civilians is not available (1).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as a Code of Conduct for civilians is not available (1).

There is a Code of Conduct, however, its guidance is inadequate or lacks clarity and specificity.
Each public service has its own Code of Conduct. For instance, the code for tax officials dates from 2002,¹ while the one for prison and school inspectors was adopted in June 2016.² The former specifies that tax officials must “avoid situations that entail a conflict of interests”. These may relate to “money, presents and holding privileged information over a taxpayer”.¹ By contrast, the code of conduct for prison and school inspectors makes no reference to not accepting bribes, gifts or avoiding conflicts of interest. The government is currently seeking to harmonise the respective codes of conduct for public servants, but there is no evidence that is has completed this task and adopted a new comprehensive law.³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ In addition, the Penal Code does outlaw bribery and acts designed to gain undue influence in the civil service (see Q46A).

The respective Codes of Conduct are issued to civil servants during their induction training, which outlines the key tenets of the codes. However, the codes are not necessarily readily available to the public. There is also a standard welcome booklet that is issued to state employees, which outlines that their annual performance evaluations are based upon their conduct as a public official.[1]

Corruption is widespread within the state administration and breaches of the Code of Conduct are only occasionally investigated and enforced. Citizens are accustomed to paying a small bribe to public officials to obtain a service that everyone has the right to obtain free of charge.¹ ³ ⁴ Indeed, rent-seeking opportunities are so lucrative that many people pay to become public officials.² In 2016, it was reported that a number of people had paid between 3,000,000 and 5,000,000 CFA to obtain posts within state agencies, such as customs.²
However, the BVG has uncovered cases of large-scale corruption. In a 2012 report, the Auditor General announced that USD 20 million in public funds had been embezzled, and in a 2013 report the number increased to USD 100 million.⁵ Following the 2013 BVG report, the government submitted approximately 100 cases to the Ministry of Justice, all of which still await judicial action (as of March 2016). “In 2011, the anti-corruption prosecutor announced that around USD 15 million of embezzled public funds were recovered, but no prosecutions were made.⁵ Similarly, inspectors from the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria uncovered cases of embezzlement of public and donor funds at the Ministry of Health, leading to the prosecution of several high-ranking health ministry officials.⁵

The respective Codes of Conduct are issued to civil servants during their induction training, which outlines the key tenets of the codes

The general conduct of military personnel is detailed in two documents: the Regulations on General Discipline of the Royal Armed Forces and the Military Justice Code (1)(2).

However, neither of them covers conduct with respect to corruption, even though they provide a detailed account of the behaviour military personnel should observe before, during and after operations (1).

In the absence of elements referring to the conduct of military personnel with respect to corruption in these documents, the assessor looked for similar elements in other documents and sources, such as the government’s website, NGO reports and the anti-corruption government platform (3)(4)(5).

However none of them mentioned conduct with respect to corruption.

This lack of evidence of a clear, proper and published code of conduct with respect to corruption indicates a lack of transparency.

Since Morocco has no code of conduct, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Since Morocco has no code of conduct, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Since Morocco has no code of conduct, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

As a result of cooperation with the Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), based on a 2011 Decree (1), in 2015 the National Police adopted an Ethics and Deontology Guide which determines the norms of conduct for Nigerien police (2). However, there is no explicit mention of corruption issues (2). It does not apply to all civilian personnel. Besides the code, there are also “regulations on [the] general discipline of the staff of the national police” (3). However, corruption does not appear in the Disciplinary Regulations as a specific fault to be sanctioned.
In addition to the Code of Ethics for the National Police (4), Articles 130–133 of the Public Penal Code of 2003 should be mentioned because they apply to all civilian personnel and can be generally interpreted to be serving as a guidance tool for dealing with bribery, gifts, hospitality. In Section VII of the Public Penal Code (On Corruption and Influence Peddling), Articles 130–133 apply to civil servants, which theoretically include members of Niger’s police forces (5). They describe penalties for corruption and influence peddling, with penalties for those who solicit or accept bribes, offer gifts or misuse public office. In sum, based on the examples above, there are regulations similar to what a Code of Conduct would include, but existing ones regarding corruption lack clarity and specificity.

There is no single Code of Conduct for all civilian personnel that includes, but is not limited to, guidance with respect to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. Therefore, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

There is no single Code of Conduct for all civilian personnel that includes, but is not limited to, guidance with respect to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. Therefore, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

There is no single Code of Conduct for all civilian personnel that includes, but is not limited to, guidance with respect to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. Therefore, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

The General Code of Conduct of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution applies to all personnel. It guides how to escalate issues. It prohibits accepting bribery and benefits of any kind, accepting any gifts or benefits from commercial firms, business enterprises or persons who have contracts with the government, except gifts from family as custom demands. Conflicts of interests are not mentioned (1). The Code of Conduct Tribunal has the power to try offences under this provision. The tribunal has the power to punish any infringement of the Act and can impose sanctions such as vacation from office, disqualification from holding public office and seizure of illegally acquired property. Other criminal sanctions may still apply (2).

The Code of Conduct is readily available on the Code of Conduct Bureau’s website (1).

Enforcement of the code does not apply to all cases (1).

There is no evidence to show that personnel are trained (1)

The Civil Service Law (RD 120/2004), applies to civilian personnel according to the eGovernment portal (1), (2). Article 103 and 104: prohibits accepting gifts, conflict of interests, exploiting position while employed, and it requires an employee to declare all assets if requested (1), (3). The term bribery is not used or defined in the piece of legislation (4). Chapter 13 of the Civil Service Law sets out the procedure for administrating investigations; including suspension, impact on salary, questioning, and penalties (3). The procedures set out for administrative investigations are serious and detailed, spanning between Article 105 and 137 (3). There is a fairly comprehensive code of conduct including guidance on how to proceed in cases of misconduct; however, no explicit reference is made to bribery or post-separation activities, which makes it incomplete.

The Civil Service Law is accessible through the eGovernment website (1), (2). However, there are no details of how it is presented to civilian personnel on either the eGovernment website, within the legislation, or the Royal Armed Forces website (1), (3), (4). According to a senior officer within the Omani army, the code of conduct is usually presented on boards in the units for all personnel, but nobody pays attention to it (2).

The code of conduct is seen as a bureaucratic tool, rather than as a serious document. It lacks credibility and is not taken seriously by many personnel in the armed forces (both civilians and soldiers) (1), (2). No reports or media articles were found demonstrating the enforcement of the Civil Service Law against civilian personnel (3), (4), (5). There is no evidence on institutional websites that breaches of the law are addressed (6), (7).

No information was found regarding professional training concerning the code of conduct (1), (2).

There is a Code of Conduct for all civilian personnel, which covers the majority of aspects related to corruption and bribery, “activities that undermine reputation or the agency or in a form of conflicts of interest”. However, it does provide specific guidance on how to proceed in cases if they face corruption incidents (1).

The Code of Conduct is available online on almost all agencies and ministries websites. Some agencies print it out and distribute it to their employees (2). However, it may not be readily available to all civilian personnel, but the code of conduct is given to personal when they sign an employment contract (1).

There are many breaches by employees (1). Violations of the Code of Conduct are rarely investigated. Violating the Code of Conduct happens often because there is little oversight or repercussions to the violations. Most breaches of the Code of Conduct are minor violations (2), (3).

There is no evidence that training is provided to civilian personnel on the code of conduct.

There is a code of conduct for civilian personnel in Qatar. [1] However, this code of conduct does not cover all aspects such as bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. The code of conduct is easily accessible online and covers a wide range of topics such as bribery and clash of interests and gifts but does not regulate post-separation activity. The document also cites the penal code and the civil Human Resources Law, specifically in relation to bribery and clash of interests. It is important to note here that, despite the availability of a code of conduct, the document is lacking in clarity and detail. [2,3]

There is a code of conduct for civilian personnel that is available and accessible to the public. [1] The code of conduct is available online and is easy to access. [3] Data also suggests that some Government agencies are working towards enforcing the code of conduct. The Audit Bureau has created a code of ethics pertaining to civilian personnel and is adopted by technical and administrative staff. [2] It is important to note that some Government institutions have their own code of conduct, such as the Ministry of Education and Qatar Petroleum.

Although there is a code of conduct, adherence to the code is not monitored by any external agency. [1,2] There is, therefore, no evidence to suggest that there have been violations of the code of conduct, and thus assessing its enforcement is not possible due to this lack of evidence. [3]

There is very limited training by local experts on issues related to the code of coduct . Corruption is mentioned within such trainings, but not treated as a primary topic. Guidance is available periodically, especially for senior civilian officers [1].

The website of the Saudi Ministry of Civil Service features the Code of Conduct for civilian personnel, which was approved by the Council of Ministers in August 2016 (1), (2). The Code of Conduct has a section outlining guidance for gifts, bribery and hospitality. It prohibits public sector employees from accepting: gifts or services offered to the employee directly or indirectly or any advantage that has a direct or indirect impact on his or her integrity; decoration or gift or award from any foreign government without obtaining official approval; or any special facilities or discounts on private purchases from suppliers who have formal transactions relating to his or her work. It also prohibits the use of any information obtained by virtue of the employee’s work to obtain a service or special treatment from any party (3).

The Code of Conduct does not, however, outline the sanctions that would be incurred by the employee should he or she violate the stipulations of it.

The aforementioned Code of Conduct is published on the website of the Ministry of Civil Service. However, in August 2018, Saudi Arabia’s primary anti-corruption body, Nazaha, published a survey stating that 69% of the country’s public sector employees did not have access to the Code of Conduct for public service within their government agencies. This survey was based on a random sample of approximately 4,700 employees across the country, with 63% of those surveyed stating that the government agency at which they were employed did not publish the relevant Code of Conduct on its website. In that month, the anti-corruption body also urged government agencies to train employees on the content of the Code of Conduct (1), (2). According to our sources, there is no training provided on anti-corruption measures and the use of code of conduct (3), (4).

Breaches of the Code of Conduct and related investigations are occasionally reported in the Saudi and regional press. According to our sources, a breach of the code of conduct can lead to stringent consequences if it catches public attention, but in most cases, it is ignored or superficially investigated (1), (2). A notable example in 2017 was the dismissal of Minister of State for Civil Service Khaled al-Arraj from his post in April 2017, on charges that he abused his position by appointing his son to the country’s Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, despite his son lacking the relevant qualifications. In that same month, al-Araj reportedly faced 10 years in prison (3). However, no further information was released in the public domain relating to the current status or outcome, if any, of the investigation. This case represents, at least publicly, a rare example of civil servants in the country being investigated and apprehended over breaches of the Code of Conduct.

There is no training provided on anti-corruption measures and use of the code of conduct (1), (2).

The Code of Conduct for Public Officials was approved by the decree dated 3 October 2014, which is a code setting the behavior of all Public Officials in all Ministries. The code includes, but is not limited to, bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, parallel and political activities (1). However this code covers all areas of public services and therefore lacks clarity and specificty for the defence sector.

According to our sources, the Code of Conduct is usually readily available for all employees within their offices and can be accessed online. In many ministries, the Code of Conduct is distributed annually as practice(1,2).

According to our sources, breaches of the Code of Conduct are usually investigated but superficially, unless the violations are serious and attract the attention of the public (1,2). No evidence of enforcement of the Code of Conduct for public officials could be foud (3).

According to our sources, periodic ad hoc guidance may be provided to military personnel by commanding officers. (1)

There is a clear and well-defined code of ethics and professional conduct available for all public and private personnel working under the Federal Authority of Human Resources in the UAE. The code of conduct includes explains bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. However, it lacks the procedual guidance on application or enforcement (1).

The code of ethics and professional conduct is available for all public and private personnel online, and also employees are provided with a signed copy when they first get a job (1).

There are rare cases when investigations occur as a result of a breach of the Code of Conduct. This usually happens with foreign employees who commit financial crimes and other crimes within the country (1).

There is no guidance provided during ad-hoc training or in the induction period. There is only a paper referencing the code of conduct that employees have to sign at the beginning of the employment period, as part of the employment contract. (1).

Country Sort by Country 47a. Code of conduct Sort By Subindicator 47b. Transparency Sort By Subindicator 47c. Enforcement Sort By Subindicator 47d. Training Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Angola 0 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Burkina Faso 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 NEI
Cameroon 25 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Egypt 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Ghana 50 / 100 50 / 100 NEI NEI
Iraq 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Jordan 50 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Lebanon 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Mali 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Niger 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Nigeria 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Oman 75 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Qatar 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Saudi Arabia 75 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Tunisia 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
United Arab Emirates 100 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100

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

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

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2020