Q20.

Is there policing to investigate corruption and organised crime within the defence services and is there evidence of the effectiveness of this policing?

20a. Existence of policing function

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

20b. Independence

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

20c. Effectiveness

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

There is some evidence that there is policing to investigate corruption and organized crimes within the defence services.

According to the Military Code of Justice, the military judicial police is responsible for detecting offences of military personnel (Art. 43, 1). The Code only broadly refers to crimes and from the Code, it is not clear if there is a unit within the military police that is charged with working on corruption and organized crime in the defence sector. According to newspaper reports the Military Judicial Police is responsible for the fight against terrorism as well as espionage and treason cases (2). However, Chérif Drif wrote that the Central Directorate of the Judicial Police has broad powers to investigate cases of misappropriation, embezzlement and corruption (3). According to a newspaper report, the military judiciary was involved in monitoring military officers accused of illicit enrichment (4).

According to Art. 44 of the Military Panel Code, the Military Judiciary Police falls under the authority of the Minister of Defence, which does not guarantee that the officers of the Military Judiciary Police can act independently (1). In 2019, the Military Judiciary Police was involved in the arrest of high-ranking regime members, including the brother of former president Bouteflika. According to one newspaper report the arrest was ordered by a Domestic Security Agency acting under the Defence Ministry (2). Since their work is secret, no evidence could be found on whether the Minister of Defence has actively influenced the work of the Military Judiciary Police.

It is difficult to find information that allows for the assessment of the effectiveness of the legal provisions. There is a case of five high-ranking military members reportedly accused of corruption in 2018. It is still pending which does not allow for an assessment to be made (1). No other examples of military personnel being prosecuted for bribery or corruption were found since 2016. Newspaper articles reporting on the case compared the five generals to General Beloucif who embezzled money from the Ministry of National Defence in the 1990s (2).

The question can therefore only be answered, if at all, by referring to cases involving civilians, for example, the former Minister of Energy, Chekib Kheli, was accused of being involved in a complex international money-laundering system. In a court case in Italy, it was exposed that he had received bribes of nearly 200 million euros. Algerian Prime Minister Ahmed Ouyahia announced in November 2017, that the case would be closed (3) indicating that an obvious case had not been prosecuted. However, there have been jail sentences in corruption cases in connection to the state hydrocarbon company Sonatrach in 2016 (4). Generally, Freedom House notes that the judiciary is vulnerable to government pressure. For example, the president appoints all judges and prosecutors (5).

The Criminal Investigation Police (SIC), under the supervision of the Ministry of Interior, has an organized crime department. In March, a new directorate to combat crimes of corruption was integrated into the SIC (Law 78/18 of March 15) (1). The effectiveness of the new structure has yet to be proven. The fact that SIC itself has routinely used torture on suspects and has engaged in extrajudicial killings hasn’t contributed to its credibility. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether SIC has jurisdiction over the whole defence and security sector, considering the special budget regime of and direct presidential supervision over some security-related public services.

The corruption charges against the former general chief of staff of the armed forces, General Sachipengo Nunda, brought by and publicly announced by the attorney general in March 2018, and later dropped by the Supreme Court of Angola, appear to be politically motivated, rather than indicating an anti-corruption move in the defence sector (2), (3), (4).

Neither the Criminal Investigation Police (SIC) nor the General Inspectorate of the State Administration (IGAE), or the inspector general of national defence are independent entities. While the IGAE is an auxiliary organ of the presidency, SIC is subordinate to the Ministry of Interior, and the inspector general of national defence is subordinate to the Ministry of Defense (1), (2). According to the 2010 constitution, minsters are auxiliary bodies of the president, who is the head of the executive. Therefore, either action or inaction of any of those institutions ultimately depends on the presidency.

In 2018, under President Lourenço, investigations and prosecutions of senior public servants on corruption charges reached an unprecedented level. Previously, successive amnesty laws undermined ongoing or potential criminal corruption investigations, such as a 2016 amnesty law, or the 2017 shelving of all the state administration inspector general’s investigations opened since January 2013 (see above) (1). However, in May, President Lourenço declared a controversial law for the repatriation of capital, which allows with impunity voluntary capital repatriation to Angola within a preset timeframe – independently of its potential criminal origin (3).

In May 2018, the journalists Rafael Marques de Morais and Mariano Brás were brought to trial under charges of defamation and outrage against an organ of sovereignty (a “crime against the security of the state”), for having exposed the alleged corrupt business practices of the former attorney general (2). In July, a Luanda court acquitted the journalists of all charges (4).

There is no policing function within the defence services that is exercised over the defence to investigate corruption and organized crime. But, there is a national security strategy which entered into force in 2010, that applies to any kinds of security threats, including organised crime (1). This national security policy is complemented by other security-related policies including the recent national Social and Economic Development Plan (2); and the National Defence Policy of Burkina Faso, adopted on April 19, 2004 (3). Yet, the actual National Defence Policy addresses defence issues instead. It, therefore, does not seek to address organised crimes taking place within the defence sector. The question may be asked whether it is because organised crime rarely occurs in the defence sector that the military has not yet thought about making policy on the subject. In any case, the attack perpetrated by the former members of the RSP on the Yemdi arms store (4), (5), sounds like a strong signal for the necessity of policymaking, to address such offences within the defence sector. Lastly, the Gendarmerie, a special defence service, occasionally investigates corruption and organised crime, but it is only entitled to exercise policing functions over the defence service to investigate corruption and organised crime.

Because there is no policing function to investigate organised crime, this indicator has been scored Not Applicable.

Because there is no policing function to investigate organised crime, this indicator has been scored Not Applicable.

Both the military and the police have units charged with the investigation of organised crime [1]. Law No. 2017/012 of 12 July 2017 lays down the Code of Military Justice [2]. Crimes and offences committed by military personnel are handled under what is termed ‘military justice’ (articles 8 and 11 of the Code) [2]. Its jurisdiction falls under the Military Justice Directorate. This Directorate reports to the President of the Republic.This Directorate has authority over all of the armed forces, including the gendarmerie. However, the Military Security Division, which acts as the military police, brings in personnel from all services. This unit handles all types of offences ranging from corruption to organised crime and, depending on the nature of the crimes, it refers them to either a civilian or a military court [2].

The policing units in the defence and security sectors are not independent, as they fall under the authority of tthe Ministry of Defence and the executive [1]. According to a U.S. State Department 2017 Human Rights Report, “The Ministry of Defence — which includes the gendarmerie, army, and the army’s military security unit — reports to an office of the Presidency, resulting in strong presidential control of security forces” [1].

According to the US State Department Human Rights report (2017), some steps have been taken to hold police officers accountable for corruption and abuse of power, but enforcement mechanisms remain weak and few details are known about investigations and subsequent actions. Also, cases may be investigated but not often prosecuted, or only certain types of cases are prosecuted [1].

The US State Department Human Rights report (2017) states, “The government took some steps to hold police accountable for abuses of power. Police remained ineffective, poorly trained, and corrupt. Impunity continued to be a problem. Some officers convicted of corruption were relieved of their duties but continued to be paid due to weak oversight, accountability, and enforcement mechanisms for internal disciplining. Civilian authorities maintained some control over the police and gendarmerie, and the government had some mechanisms in place to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. The DGSN and gendarmerie investigated reports of abuse and forwarded cases to the courts. Lesser sanctions were handled internally. The DGSN, Ministry of Defence, and Ministry of Justice claimed members of security forces were sanctioned during the year for committing abuses, but few details were known about investigations or any subsequent accountability” [1].

In theory, several quasi-policing mechanisms could carry out investigations into grand corruption and organized crime in the defence services. However, there is no single unit within the national police that is solely dedicated to this type of activity.

The Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières de Côte d’Ivoire (CENTIF-CI), a financial intelligence unit, has operated since March 2008. It is tasked with processing reports of suspicious activities from banking institutions and forwarding them to a court of law (1). However, though CENTIF-CI is a member of the Egmont Group of international financial intelligence units, it is considered ineffective by anti-corruption CSOs (2).

The Inspection Générale des Finances within the Brigade de Lutte contre la Corruption (BLC) was set up in 2012 to carry out investigations about grand corruption, which in theory would include the penetration of organized crime in the public sector. But according to Global Integrity (AII 2018), its mandate is largely restricted to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, thus limiting the scope of its investigations (3).

In terms of policing mechanisms, the Haute Autorité pour la Bonne Gouvernance (HABG, est. 2013 and operational since 2014) is tasked with monitoring anti-corruption, mainly through asset disclosure schemes that apply to about 4,600 senior politicians in Côte d’Ivoire, including those at MoD. However, it too is perceived as largely ineffective in investigating corruption and organized crime (3).

The Unité de Lutte Contre le Racket (ULCR) was set up in 2014 in an attempt to end the bribery practices of police officers at roadblocks, particularly in rural areas. This unit is specifically focused on petty corruption of low-ranking police officers at roadblocks rather than in investigating organized crime (4).

The Cour des Comptes (Audit Court) is an overarching government accountability mechanism tasked with the scrutiny of public finances. As per Articles 152-154 of the 2016 Constitution, the Cour des Comptes can investigate the accounts at all ministries, including the MoD (5). However, despite its broad mandate, it rarely publishes audit reports and, according to the 2018 Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI 2018), public audits in Côte d’Ivoire have been historically ineffective in exposing financial malpractice (6).

Finally, on January 26, 2017, Côte d’Ivoire published Law No. 2016-992 (November 14, 2016) related to the fight against money laundering and terrorist finance (Relative à la lutte contre le blanchissement des capitaux et lefinancement du terrorisme) in the Official Journal. Law No. 2016-992 seeks to bolster the legal framework and empower the country’s anti-corruption bodies in the fight against money laundering and terrorist finance. Under Section 1 (Definitions), No. 15, the Law explicitly cites organized crime and racketeering as “participation in an organized criminal group and participation in a racketeering network” (7).

Most of the policing mechanisms are nominally independent and are vulnerable to political interference by the executive as well as by high-ranking members of the government, including military officials.

The 2018 Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI 2018) and the 2018 country profile of Côte d’Ivoire by Freedom House highlight the lack of independence of the Judiciary system. As evidence, they point to the fact that military leaders who sided with Laurent Gbagbo were put on trial and convicted, while those who sided with Alassane Outtara had not been tried. This has tarnished the perception of impartiality of the judicial system (1). “The judiciary is not independent, and judges are highly susceptible to external interference and bribes. Processes governing the assignment of cases to judges are opaque…Concerns about impunity, victor’s justice, and reconciliation have persisted after the close of the 2010–11 crisis. To date, only a handful of individuals have been put on trial for crimes committed during that period” (2).

As for the HABG and the Cour des Comptes, Global Integrity’s AII 2018 concluded that it is questionable whether these institutions truly have the independence and capacity to investigate abuses presumably linked to senior office holders and high-ranking military officials (3).
“Nevertheless, the HABG, which is the main body, is it truly independent? The evidence indicates it is not because it is strongly dependent on the executive power in particular” (3).

The policing mechanisms tasked with investigating corruption and organized crime can be described as largely ineffective because they lack independence, are understaffed and lack the power to impose penalties. The result is that some cases are investigated, but seldom are they prosecuted or have any judicial follow-up.

For the 2018 Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI 2018), the policing mechanisms tasked with oversight of public finance (CENTIF-CI, HABG, Cour des Comptes) are ineffectual because they lack the qualified staff to prevent corruption. For example, the HABG can carry out investigations and publish reports, but it is not part of the Judiciary and is therefore powerless when it comes to penalties (1). Global Integrity (AII 2018) reported that there are few cases in which senior officials have been prosecuted for corruption as a result of HABG investigations. HABG has also been criticized by local reporters for its lack of independence related to asset declaration schemes. The asset declarations are confidential and do not extend to family members. As of May 2017, the HABG announced that only 65 of 255 members of parliament had submitted declarations for the previous year (2).
Citing an anonymous source, AII 2018 concludes that though the HABG can forward its reports of alleged corruption to the public prosecutor (Procureur de la République), there is no way of knowing the number of cases that have resulted in prosecution because reports of HABG investigations are not made public:

“In practice, the HABG registers all cases of complaints of corruption and can inform the Public Prosecutor, although it should be specified that most of its reports and the results of these investigations are not made public… According to an anonymous expert, a journalist and civil servant, it [the HABG] “remains a purely administrative vehicle and does not seem to be equipped to carry out its mandate on the ground.” Furthermore, the expert states that there is no “link between the Court of Auditors, which is supposed to judge cases, and the HABG, which is tasked with oversight” (2).

There is a unit within the MoD designated, the Military Police, which is responsible for dealing with corruption cases and crimes within the armed forces and other security agencies. This agency works closely with military intelligence (1), (2), (3). According to Article 204 of the Constitution, investigating corruption and all other crimes committed by officers and personnel is the exclusive right of the military justice system which consists of military prosecution and military courts (4). As for investigating the conduct of officers, this is the task of the military intelligence (which also work to ensure the loyalty of the officers) in collaboration with the Military Police (1). There is also the public funds’ investigations unit within the national police, but given that the military justice system has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by military personnel, it is very rare that military personnel will be investigated by such national police unit.

The Military Police reports to the MoD and the executive. The independence of both the Military Police, the military judicial system, and courts is compromised (1), (2), (3). All these police and justice institution are subordinate to the MoD, including military intelligence, military courts and the Military Police and are considered “administrative units” of the ministry (4). Thus, its independence is largely compromised as they naturally come under the influence of top military executives like the minister of defence (5). However, according to Article 204 of the Constitution “members of the Military Court shall be independent and shall be immune to dismissal. They shall have all the guarantees, rights and duties stipulated for the members of other judicial bodies” (5).

There is no extra military authority that is entrusted or has the power to investigate or prosecute cases of corruption in the defence sector because investigating and prosecuting these calls falls under the jurisdiction of military courts (1), (2), (3).

The Ghana Police Service has the Police Intelligence and Professional Standards (PIPs) Bureau that is mandated with dealing with issues of corruption and crimes that occur within the institution (1). There is no state policing unit under the Ghana Police Service charged with investigating corruption and organised crime in the military (2), (3), (4), (5).

The Ghana Military Police (GMP) is tasked with fighting corruption, crime, and misconduct. The GMP reports to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) which, under the control and direction of the Armed Forces Council, is responsible for the administration, operational control and command of the armed forces (6).

Outside defence and security institutions, the Economic Organised Crime Office (EOCO) monitors and investigates economic and organised crime in all public offices, including the defence services. The EOCO is a specialised agency and operates under the authority of the Attorney –General (7).

The policing functions within the defence and security sector do not operate independently of the bodies that they investigate as they respond to their respective chains of command. Therefore, they are likely to be subject to influence from top military officials (1), (2).

The EOCO operates independently from the defence and security services; however, it has been criticised for being unduly influenced by the executive (3).

Prosecutions against corruption are rare, and there is no evidence of prosecutions for corruption against the upper echelons of the armed forces (1), (2).

The PIPs Bureau is struggling to build integrity within the Ghana Police Service, and episodes of corruption and misconduct are often exposed by the media. At present, the police are perceived as the most corrupt institution in Ghana (3), (4).

There are several entities that could, potentially if mandated, act in a policing function to investigate organised crimes and corruption within the defence sector in Jordan. These include the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Audit Bureau, and the Public Security Directorate [1, 2, 3]. However, none of these exercise policing, nor can they launch investigations into the Armed Forces, who have prohibited the publication of any information related to it [4]. The Army, Navy and Air Forces are considered to be under the leadership of the King, who is the Supreme Commander, according to Article 32 of the Constitution [5]. Jordan has made great advances and exerted major efforts to comply with the UNCAC, in relation to countering corruption, including the establishment of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission and the amendment of laws [6]. Despite these changes, it is still unclear whether these legally apply to the Armed Forces and there is no evidence to show the existence of policing within the defence sector in relation to organised crime and corruption.

There is also a military police unit with the mandate to investigate violations of the code of conduct and any crimes committed by members of the armed forces. This unit is under direct command of the Commader in Chief and MoD, but it is not clear that it deals with organised crime [7,8].

This sub-indicator has been marked as not applicable, as explained in the previous sub-indicator there is no policing function to investigate corruption and organised crime within the Armed Forces, and thus it is not possible to asses this function’s independence as it is non-existent [1,2].

This sub-indicator has been marked as not applicable, as explained in the previous sub-indicator there is no policing function to investigate corruption and organised crime within the Armed Forces, and thus it is not possible to asses this function’s independence as it is non-existent [1,2].

There is no unit in the military or the police whose sole job is to fight organised crime or corruption within these institutions, both officials and an activist who lectures at these ministries often said (1, 2, 3 and 4). These institutions simply rely on the performance evaluation reports each supervisor writes about his subordinates (as ordained by article 55 of Law. 32 of 1967 for military affairs (5) and 52 of Law. 23 of 1968 for police affairs (6)) and on tips from whistleblowers, coming in independently or through the ACA. The problem is there is no clear criteria that decides which violation requires the involvement of the military courts.

These organisations depend on military prosecutors to investigate when such allegations of misconduct arise (7). The fact that there is not a specific unit for these crimes should not be seen as a shortcoming in this case for one reason: Kuwait has a fairly low crime rate, so it is not suprising that these organisations have not created a unit to fight a problem that does not truly exist. The fact that they have annual reviews, an internal reporting system, prosecution and courts for all kinds of misconduct, which legally covers organised crime, is enough to say that there is institutional awareness of the risk of organised crime and corruption penetrating their bodies.

The military prosecution, as a department, works separately, so its officers are not likely to personally know the officers whose conduct they will be investigating (unless those officers are from the same department) but they are not independent since they are carried out by the military prosecution, whose leaders are appointed by the Defence Minister and whose budget is also controlled by the Minister (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Article 27 of the military law (6) and 24 of the police law (7) give these ministers complete control over the funds of the organisation and his commands cannot be challenged by anyone or any group within the organisation, so the top leadership can interfere with their budget.

The Defence Minister is also usually someone from the royal family, which makes this agency particularly likely to be politically influenced by the Emir and other important executive officials (2, 3, 4 and 5).

There is the KNG (8), another security agency which is meant to aid the police and the military and falls under the control of the SDC, which is headed by the Prime Minister, according to Law. no 2 of 1967 for the KNG. The head of the KNG sets the rules of the organisation, but they usually tend to copy the procedures in the military law. The law of the organisation is not available to the public, media or researchers. There appears to be no investigations or prosecutions in the KNG.

Cases of corruption are investigated but they almost never result in prosecutions, and the investigation is always superficial, officials and activists said (1, 2, 3 and 4). Investigators either do not demand or do not receive data needed for convictions, and hearings often get postponed until the case loses public attention and is subsequently closed without resolution. Cases of organised crime within the institution are rare and so are investigations into such matters.

With regards to the KNG, as mentioned above, the law of the organisation is not available to the public, media or researchers and there appears to be no investigations or prosecutions in the KNG.

The LAF’s Military Police is responsible for internal policing. It is tasked with controlling and reporting violations in addition to providing support for combat units and the military judiciary (1). Though research found no specific unit solely responsible for anti-corruption and organized crime within the LAF, the Military Police monitors law violations committed by military personnel including corruption (2). Article 105 of the Code of Military Justice categorizes bribery as a criminal offence (3). For example, State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Peter Germanos, issued a warrant for the Military Police and other investigative units in other security institutions to inform him of any bribes paid for military or security personnel on the subject of drilling artesian wells. (4) The LAF’s Directorate of Orientation confirmed the Military Police’s internal role in investigating violations, including corruption (5).

The Military Police operates under the instructions of the LAF Command and the military prosecution. Thus, the Military Police’s findings will be reported back to the military judiciary (1). However, the government feels that Military Intelligence plays an effective role against corruption and organized crime inside the military as well as countrywide. The Military Police is not an independent body, they report to military prosecutors who are designated civilian judges, who are expected to act independently from the LAF administration (2).

Military Police activities, outside the defence sector, are mentioned in the news (1). Announcements of the prosecutions’ results are eventually published (2). Nevertheless, the research found no information about undue political influence. It is also not possible to check the proportion of the cases that are investigated are eventually prosecuted due to a lack of information (3). However, a source indicated that the Military Police investigate violations efficiently (4).

There is no unit within the national police force that deals with organised crime and corruption within defence services. The Ministry of Internal Security and Civil Protection comprises four main branches: the National Police, Civil Protection, National Gendarmerie, and the National Guard. The Gendarmerie and National Guard are military organisations that also come under the Ministry of Defence, severely compromising their ability to investigate the defence services. Law enforcement is the responsibility of the National Police. Police responsibilities are concentrated exclusively in urban areas, while the Gendarmerie is primarily responsible for rural areas. According to OSAC, police are poorly trained, poorly paid, and lack resources to combat crime effectively.¹
There is evidence indicating that some elements of the Malian force are undergoing training to help combat organised crime. In March 2015, 50 security officers from various regions of Mali received specialised training from UN police officers on detection techniques to counter illicit drug trafficking and transnational organised crime.² The event was hosted at the National Police Academy in Bamako. However, there is no evidence that the police can investigate the armed forces. For instance, in 2011, a colonel was arrested for allegedly embezzling approximately EUR457,000 of military funds. But it was the army rather than police that made the arrest.³ Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that the DGSE, the Malian intelligence service, have the authority to investigate and detain army officials suspected of corruption. In 2016, the DGSE arrested four senior members of the armed forces for allegedly embezzling CFA700 million of military allowances.⁴
A senior security governance professional told the assessor that the Inspector General of the armed forces has a constitutional mandate to conduct audits of irregularities within defence sector.⁷ However, the Inspector General does not publish any reports, making it very difficult to tell how effective the system of oversight is. The source told the assessor that the Inspector General reports to the Minister of Defence through the Secretary General, who himself was formerly Inspector General.⁷
The current Inspector General, Ibrahim Dahirou Dembélé, was appointed in February 2018. The appointment was made by the Council of Ministers, having accepted the nomination of the Minister of Defence.⁵ ⁶ Having been a key figure in Captain Amadou Sanogo’s military junta in 2012, the appointment was highly controversial. Moreover, Dembélé was appointed a mere 15 days after a court in Bamako had lifted his probation status.⁵ ⁶ Dembélé currently stands accused of ‘passive complicity’ in the assassination in 2012 of 21 members of the red berets, a rival unit to that of Sanogo’s green berets. The trial of Sanogo and several co-defendants opened in November 2016 and is ongoing.
A defence attaché working at a foreign embassy in Bamako confirmed that there is a military judicial system.⁸ The source said he had seen soldiers arrested and tried for offences such as theft, robbery and murder, but had not come across any cases of corruption being tried.⁸ In any case, he noted that results of such investigations are rarely made public, raising questions about whether offenders have been sanctioned or not.⁸ So, both the Inspector General and the DGSE have responsibilities to police corruption within the security forces, but neither of these bodies falls within the national police force.

As indicated in 20A, there is no evidence to indicate that there is a unit within the national police force to deal with corruption within the armed forces. Therefore, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.
A senior security governance professional told the assessor that the Inspector General of the armed forces has a constitutional mandate to conduct audits of irregularities within the defence sector.⁷ However, the Inspector General does not publish any reports, making it very difficult to tell how effective the system of oversight is. The source told the assessor that the Inspector General reports to the Minister of Defence through the Secretary General, who himself was formerly Inspector General.⁷
The current Inspector General, Ibrahim Dahirou Dembélé, was appointed in February 2018. The appointment was made by the Council of Ministers, having accepted the nomination of the Minister of Defence.⁵ ⁷ Dembelé having been a key figure in Captain Amadou Sanogo’s military junta in 2012, the appointment was highly controversial. Moreover, Dembélé was appointed a mere 15 days after a court in Bamako had lifted his probation status.⁵ ⁷ Dembélé currently stands accused of ‘passive complicity’ in the assassination in 2012 of 21 members of the red berets, a rival unit to that of Sanogo’s green berets. The trial of Sanogo and several co-defendants opened in November 2016 and is ongoing. Making such a controversial appointment can be better understood when one considers that the president faces re-election in July/August 2018. With IBK being in a fairly weak position, the appointment of Dembélé was designed to secure the president votes from supporters of Sanogo and Dembélé.⁷ The overt political calculations in this appointment and the very sudden lifting of Dembélé’s probation status indicates how deeply politicised and non-independent the Inspector General is.

As indicated in 20A, there is no evidence to indicate that there is a unit within the national police force to deal with corruption within the armed forces. Therefore, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.
A senior security governance professional told the assessor that the Inspector General of the armed forces has a constitutional mandate to conduct audits of irregularities within the defence sector.⁷ However, the Inspector General does not publish any reports, making it very difficult to tell how effective the system of oversight is. The source told the assessor that the Inspector General reports to the Minister of Defence through the Secretary General, who himself was formerly Inspector General.⁷
The current Inspector General, Ibrahim Dahirou Dembélé, was appointed in February 2018. The appointment was made by the Council of Ministers, having accepted the nomination of the Minister of Defence.⁵ ⁷ Dembelé having been a key figure in Captain Amadou Sanogo’s military junta in 2012, the appointment was highly controversial. Moreover, Dembélé was appointed a mere 15 days after a court in Bamako had lifted his probation status.⁵ ⁷ Dembélé currently stands accused of ‘passive complicity’ in the assassination in 2012 of 21 members of the red berets, a rival unit to that of Sanogo’s green berets. The trial of Sanogo and several co-defendants opened in November 2016 and is ongoing. Making such a controversial appointment can be better understood when one considers that the president faces re-election in July/August 2018. With IBK being in a fairly weak position, the appointment of Dembélé was designed to secure the president votes from supporters of Sanogo and Dembélé.⁷ The overt political calculations in this appointment and the very sudden lifting of Dembélé’s probation status indicates how deeply politicised and non-independent the Inspector General is.

Interviewees referred to the ‘fifth office’ (5e bureau), an internal body within the military tasked with preventing  ‘influence of foreign forces’ on the Moroccan armed forces. However its mission in relation to organised crime and corruption was unclear, as was its political independence and its effectiveness (1)(2)

In the case of Mustapha Adib, the officer accused of illegally trafficking army fuel for his own benefit was initially sentenced to 18 months in prison, but did not serve his full term and was subsequently reintegrated into his functions (3)(4).

No further information was found about the scope of action and effectiveness of this Fifth Office (5)(6)(7). There is no official policing function to investigate corruption and organised crime within the defence services. The Fifth Office is essentially an internal military spying agency and is responsible for collecting internal military intelligence. There is no evidence that suggests that the office could be dealing with corruption or organised crime cases within the defence services. Recently, the General Directorate for National Security (DGSN) has started an internal review, which resulted in many officers being persecuted. It is not clear however if the situation is the same in the military.

Interviewees noted that, in some cases, individual involvement in trafficking conducted by military personnel was overlooked by the military and civil authorities because of the close ties between the involved persons and the King (1)(2). However, no concrete proof was provided.

In the case of Mustapha Adib – the officer accused of illegally trafficking army fuel for his own benefit – he was initially sentenced to 18 months in prison but did not serve his term and was subsequently reintegrated into his various functions (3). Observers and Mustapha Adib himself argued that the proximity between the general in charge of the region in which he was serving (general Bennani) and the King skewed the ruling, and suggests that this closeness was a reason for Mustapha Adib’s treatment being more lenient.

Interviewees noted that in some cases, individual involvement in trafficking conducted by military personnel was overlooked by the military and civil authorities because of the close ties between the individuals involved and the King (1)(2). However, no concrete proof was provided.

In the case of Mustapha Adib – the officer accused of illegally trafficking army fuel for his own benefit – he was initially sentenced to 18 months in prison but did not serve his term and was subsequently reintegrated into his various functions (3). Observers and Mustapha Adib himself argued that the proximity between the general in charge of the region in which he was serving (general Bennani) and the King skewed the ruling, and suggests that this closeness was a reason for Mustapha Adib’s treatment being more lenient. No further case was found.

Internal oversight bodies of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Interior represent institutions that generally have the mandate to conduct audit missions that could reveal corrupt practices within security and defence forces. The Defence Ministry’s internal oversight body is called the Office of the Inspector General of the Armed Forces (IGA/Inspection Générale des Armées) (1). It is responsible for ensuring that all relevant administrative, financial and budgetary rules and standards are applied and respected and that public resources are managed in a transparent, efficient and cost-effective manner. In turn, the Ministry of Interior has a General Inspection of Security Services (IGSS) whose mission is to control security services: the National Police, National Guard and the Civil Protection through “skills enhancement and respect for ethics” (2). The mandate of the IGSS goes beyond simple administrative control (3) (see questions 8 and 16 for details). The 2003 Military Penal Code (4) addresses corruption in article 228, which states that officers found guilty of corruption, theft or general crime can be dismissed, demoted or imprisoned. The Code provides for a judiciary military police that reports to the Ministry of Defence (article 46). They are charged with finding and following up on all infractions of the law (article 47) at all levels of the armed forces (Article 48) (4).
On a broader level, to fight against organised crime and terrorism, authorities have used the High Authority for the Fight against Corruption and Assimilated Offences – HALCIA, Central Service for the Fight against Terrorism (SCLCT), National Financial Information Processing Unit (CENTIF), the National Commission on the Fight against Human Trafficking (CNCLTP) (5) or the National Commission for the Collection and Control of Illicit Weapons (CNCCAI). However, according to the mandate of these institutions, it is unclear if they can investigate directly within security and defence institutions. It would be plausible to assume that if their findings identified the involvement of military or security personnel, they would be able to refer them to the competent authorities.
In sum, the institutional framework aimed specifically at the investigation of corruption and organised crime within the defence sector is limited. Regardless of the existence of such institutions as CENTIF and CNCLTP, it is not clear how they engage in the investigative process of organised crime within the defence sector.

It is difficult to assess the extent to which the policing functions of the SCLCT or CENTIF are subject to undue influence from top military officials or the executive. The SCLCT responds to the General Director of the National Police (Directeur général de la Police Nationale) (1). The CENTIF is an Independent administrative authority under the authority of the Minister of Finance. It has financial autonomy and the power of autonomous decision-making on matters that fall within its competence (2). The CENTIF appears to be more independent than SCLCT, yet it is unclear how independent they are from top military officials or the executive. 

Even if there may be cases of involvement of security and defence forces in corruption or organised crime investigated, they are not disclosed publicly (1). However, the 2018 interview with the Ministry of Interior revealed that recently 7 or 8 gendarmes were dismissed because of their involvement in migrant trafficking in the Agadez region. Furthermore, he underlined that under the 2015 law (2) around 200 persons were arrested and 72 were sentenced while others are still awaiting trial (3) . 
Another example reveals a case dating back to 2014. That year police officers in the passport service of the National Police had been arrested and detained at the Niamey civil prison for their involvement in passport fraud. The director of Direction de Surveillance du Territoire (DST) and his deputy were both arrested (4).
The results of the activity of institutions fighting against organised crime are visible, even though they do not reveal cases involving security and defence forces. For example, according to its annual report, in 2016, the CENTIF recorded 29 suspicious transaction reports. The processing of reports for that year, including some of those for previous years, allowed the transmission of 27 reports to the Public Prosecutor at the end of 2016 (5). According to 2016 OCRTIS statistics, there were seizes of the following: 1086 cannabis bricks, 379,226 grams of cannabis and 660 cannabis horns; 106 grams of cocaine; 248 grams of Ephedrine; 2,773,125 tablets of Diazepam; 8,157,732 tablets of Tramadol; and, 21 grams of crack cocaine. In addition to these products, OCRTIS seized 331,650 kilograms of counterfeit pharmaceuticals (6). Recently, in June 2018, the OCRTIS managed to dismantle an important network of drug traffickers which led to the seizure of two and a half tones of cannabis resin with a value of more than 4 750 000 Euros (7).
The evidence above demonstrates that the authorities are countering organised crime, but not necessarily within the defence services. In some cases (as in Agadez) the implication of security and defence personnel is revealed and cases are investigated. However, such cases are not systematically prosecuted and disclosed to the public, which may undermine the confidence of the population in the security and defence forces.   

There are systems and structures in place to deal with the infiltration of organised crime and corruption within the defence and security services. The military police investigate crimes committed by military officers. Ad hoc committees are also created to deal with issues of corruption and crimes. Following the 2015 election, a special committee was set up by the Buhari administration to investigate corruption within the defence sector. The primary responsibility for investigating financial crimes rests outside the police force it resides with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) (1). EFCC is an independent agency with a mandate to investigate all financial crimes, including those which are committed by military officials. The Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission also has the mandate to investigate corrupt practices within the civil service (2).

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

While evidence exists of investigations into some allegations against officers appointed by the previous administration, investigations into officers appointed by the Buhari administration have been inconclusive and has given rise to allegations of bias or partiality on the part of the Buhari administration (1). The types of cases investigated tend to involve officers appointed under a previous administration (2). When allegations arise against officers appointed by the Buhari administration, the investigating agency such as the Code of Conduct Bureau is quick to absolve individuals before any investigation takes place (1), (3).

Military justice in Oman falls under the senior officers of the armed forces who oversee military courts, whose jurisdiction includes defence and security sectors (1). According to Article 62 of Oman’s Basic Law, “the jurisdiction of the military courts shall be exclusively confined to military offences committed by members of the armed and security forces” (2). Military prosecutors prosecute cases against military and police officers, and the inspector general has the right to discharge police below the rank of officer, although the inspector general is not mandated to discharge soldiers below the rank of officer in the military, a power the sultan alone holds (1). According to the US State Department report on Oman’s Human Rights Practices in 2017, “there were no reports of judicial impunity involving the security forces during the year” (3). According to our resources, no police unit investigates corruption cases within the military. The only unit responsible for that is the military judiciary and the military general prosecutor (4). However, there appears to be no police capacity to investigate corruption or organised crime, in particular in the defence services.

Due to the absence of police functions, this sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as no policing functions are assessing their independence is irrelevant in this context.

As explained in sub-indicator 20A, there is no police function which oversees defence services. Rather, the defence sector oversees the police. No cases of military justice are reported on the Ministry of Defence or Royal Oman Police websites (1), (2). As highlighted above; however, top defence figures oversee the military judiciary (3), (4).

In the absence of policing functions, this sub-indicator is marked as Not Applicable.

As highlighted in sub-indicator 20A, there is no policing unit tasked within investigating corruption and organised crime within the defence sector. Information found indicates scrutiny between defence and security lies with the military judiciary led by the armed forces (1), (2), (3), (4).

There is security apparatus named “Al istkhbarat Al Askariya,”(The Military Intelligence), which is mandated to deal with crimes and corruption cases within the national forces, police and other security agencies. This institution was established in 1994 by a presidential decree issued by Arafat. In 2004, President Abbas issued an order making the institution responsible for judicial issues within military/ security. It monitors and prosecutes military personnel under the revolution law (1).

The PMI operations are subject to considerable and regular undue influence from top military officials or the executive(1). A majority of senior security officers are from Fatah party, there usually protected by their head of agencies. Moreover, different security agencies compete for resources and reputations that they may not allow investigations by PMI and rather avoid that by exerting efforts that hinder such investigations(1).

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

There is no evidence that this unit has investigated cases of organised crime.

There is a unit within the Amir Guards that deals with, and has authority over, the armed forces. Furthermore, there is a specialized unit within the army (Military Police) responsible for investigating, arresting, and working with military personnel [1,2]. However, as there has not been any case of corruption within the military, there is no real evidence to support that the unit has the authority to arrest and investigate.

The governmental departments (e.g. the Military Police Unit) that could potentially investigate corruption and organised crime within the defence sector, are prevented from doing so through both: (1) the Armed Forces being under the control of the Emir (who has the ability to dissolve any governmental department), and (2) the mandates of potential policing units. Generally, such units are not independent [1,2].

Whilst there is no evidence of either corruption or organised crime within the defence sector, there has been a complete failure to investigate or prosecute defence personnel and institutions, as there are no policing functions in place. It has previously been established that there is little information available on the defence sector, and most of its affairs are treated as confidential, which would inevitably prevent the investigation of suspected crimes or corruption [1,2].

According to our sources, there are no units that specifically investigate corruption crimes within the armed forces. However, there are religious units that preach for ethical manners within the armed forces. A regional consultant who has worked with the Saudi defence sector stated that “there is no specialized or independent policing unit dedicated to investigating corruption or organized crime within the defence services” (1). The previously mentioned, anti-corruption committee formed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in November 2017 to spearhead his wider anti-corruption campaign is the only example of scrutiny of the defence sector (2), (3) it has led to several corruption-related arrests within the country’s armed forces (4).

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable as there is no policing function that is exercised over the defence services to investigate corruption or organised crime.

There are no policing function or units that are independent and well-functioning within the armed forces (1), (2).

This sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable as there is no policing function that is exercised over the defence services to investigate corruption or organised crime.

There is no corruption investigation unit, as such, there is a complete failure to investigate (by any agency or unit) corruption even in the face of clear evidence (1), (2).

According to our sources, there is a specialised unit within the armed forces, under the general inspector supervision that has the capacity to investigate corruption and ethical crimes within the armed forces (1,2). The Ministry of Defence contains a General Inspectorate which reports breaches of general discipline and carries out all surveys or special assignments expressly entrusted to it (Article 8 decree n° 79-735 dated 22 August 1979 on the organisation of the Ministry of Defence). The General Inspectorate can investigate corruption cases (3). There is no mention of a specific unit tasked with investigating corruption within the defence services.

According to our sources, these units are not financially independent and are headed by the executive of the MoD (Minister). Therefore, it is possible that there is political interference in the work of the General Inspector and his unit (1,2). The General Inspectorate is placed under the authority of the Minister of Defence (3), so its independence is questionable. However, there are no media reports or NGO reports mentioning any undue influence over the work of this entity (4).

According to our sources, there are superficial hearings and investigations yet, there is a low likelihood of cases within the armed forces leading to prosecution even in the face of evidence. There are rare cases that have been seriously investigated that could attract public attention (e.g. smuggling crimes.) (1,2)

There are no policing functions to investigate organised crime within the defence sector. As previously explained, the defence sector has its jurisdiction and regulations according to Article 120 of the Emirati Constitution (1). Additionally, there have been some official statements about the government’s intention to establish an anti-corruption unit, which would be part of the Ministry of Defence, which would investigate corruption. It also aims to addresses deficiencies within the legislative framework to strengthen the defence sector and lead to a reduction in the number of corruption-related crimes (2), (3).

There are no police functions that oversee the defence services. Due to the absence of police functions, this sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable. (1)

There are no police functions that oversee the defence services. Due to the absence of police functions, this sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable. (1)

Country Sort by Country 20a. Existence of policing function Sort By Subindicator 20b. Independence Sort By Subindicator 20c. Effectiveness Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Angola 50 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 NA NA
Cameroon 50 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Egypt 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Ghana 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Jordan 0 / 100 NA NA
Kuwait 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Lebanon 100 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Mali 0 / 100 NA NA
Morocco 25 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Niger 50 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Nigeria 75 / 100 NEI 50 / 100
Oman 0 / 100 NA NA
Palestine 25 / 100 0 / 100 NEI
Qatar 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Saudi Arabia 0 / 100 NA NA
Tunisia 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
United Arab Emirates 0 / 100 NA NA

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