Q44.

is there a policy of refusing bribes to gain preferred postings? Are there appropriate procedures in place to deal with such bribery, and are they applied?

44a. Policy

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

44b. Sanctions

Score

SCORE: 100/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

44c. Enforcement

Score

SCORE: NEI/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 such a policy is in place. The Statute of Military Personnel does not mention such a regulation. The law only provides some general rules for the recruitment and promotions process (1). The only regulation that could be found was in the anti-corruption law, which generally prohibits bribery (2).

In light of there being no regulations or rules found, no sanctions specific to bribes to gain preferred postings could be found in the Statute of Military Personnel (1) or the Military Justice Code (2). Art. 33 of the Anti-Corruption Law generally says that abuses in office are punishable by imprisonment between two to ten years and a fine of 200,000 to 1,000,000 DA (3). It is not specifically linked to bribes in the military.

This sub-indicator has been scored Not Applicable because no evidence in reports or articles could be found that sanctions are applied when bribes are made to gain preferred postings. Also, the General Statute of the Military Personnel (1) and the Justice of the Military does not provide any information (2) This score is also supported by the fact that there are also no formal regulations or sanctions.

Corruption is punishable by imprisonment in the Criminal Code (Art. 318-323) (1) and other legislation such as the 2014 Anti-Money Laundering Law. In the 1994 Military Law, corruption-related offences are considered common crimes (Art. 49) (2), while penalties are increased by one third. However, there is no specific reference in the legislation about bribery being used to gain preferred postings (1), (2).

The Criminal Code (2018) considers bribery an offence for all parties engaged and sets out prison terms ranging between two and eight years for bribery (Articles 318-326) (1). According to the 1994 Military Law, corruption-related offences are considered civilian crimes, though penalties are increased by one third (Art. 49) (2).

There have been occasional media reports on convictions for bribery (mostly of police agents). However, President Dos Santos has periodically issued broad amnesties that also cover corruption-related offences, the last in 2016, which indicates undue political influence (2), (3), (4), (5).

According to a media report from 2013, the military veteran group Fórum Independente dos Desmobilizados de Guerra (FIDEGA) claimed that officials of the armed forces regularly requested illegal payments of $500 to list them as beneficiaries of social pensions, while the list included government officials (1).

According to Dr. Wetta Claude, Executive Secretary of the National Anti-Corruption Network (REN-LAC), such a policy does not exist (1). This is true for Burkina Faso in general, and the defence sector, in particular. There is no evidence on the existence of a policy or rule against bribery for soliciting preferred postings. If such a policy were to exist, it would be illicit anyway, as its purpose still reflects bribery and corruption. However, refusing bribes is what the law recommends from all. And yet, it may open doors for incentives, to encourage many people to do so. Burkina Faso has laws, policies and institutions against bribery and corruption. No evidence was found on refusing bribery for gaining preferred postings (1), (2), (3).

There is no evidence of an existing policy against bribery for gaining preferred postings in Burkina Faso’s Army. Since such a policy or rule does not exist, no sanctions can be applied. However, bribery and corruption remain widespread in the country (1), (2), (3), (4). However, bribery and corruption, in general, are criminalized and punishable under the Penal Code (5).

There is no evidence of an existing policy against bribery for gaining preferred postings in Burkina Faso’s Army. Since such a policy or rule does not exist, no enforcement can be applied. As such, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

The following legislation criminalises corruption in Cameroon:
The penal code of Cameroon (Law No. 67-LF-1 of 12 June 1967):
– Article 134 criminalises the giving and taking of bribes.
– Article 137 penalises offering and receiving bribes, extortion and collusion with public employees.
– Articles 142 and 160 criminalise intent of extortion, collusion or bribery as offences.
– Articles 161, 184 and 312 criminalise embezzlement.

– Decree No. 95/048 of 1995 and Law No. 2000/015 of 19 December 2000 sanction corrupt magistrates.
– Decree No. 94/199 of 7 October 1994 penalises administrative offences.
– Law No. 2006/3 of 25 April 2006, Declaration of assets and properties.

Criminal Procedure Code:
– Law No. 67-LF-1 of 12 June 1967
– Law No. 177/23 of 6 December 1977
– Law No. 72-16 of 28 September 1972
– Law No. 2005/007 of 27 July 2005

Special Criminal Court:
– Law No. 2011/028 of 14 December 2011
Bank confidentiality:
– Law No. 2003/004 of 21 April 2003
Financing of political parties and election campaigns:
– Law No. 2000/015 of 19 December 2000
National Anti-Corruption Commission:
– Decree No. 2006/088 of 11 March 2006. [1] [2] [3]

Other policies include:
– National Governance Programme,
– Cameroon Tax Code,
– Cameroon Public Service Code,
– Cameroon Public Procurement Code,
– UN Convention against Corruption ratified by Cameroon on 25 April 2004,
– UN Convention on the Fight against Transnational Organised Crime
– African Union Convention on the fight against corruption. [4]

The Penal Code gives provision for criminalisation with sanctions for bribery and corruption ranging from five years to life imprisonment as well as the payment of fines and seizure of property [1].

A 2016 report from the International Crisis Group states that “several witness accounts stress that customs officers bribe their superiors in Yaoundé to get themselves posted to the Far North” [2] [3] [4].

Police and gendarmerie officers extort money through bribes before rendering services to citizens [2]. The laissez-faire attitude in which bribery and corruption is addressed within the defence and security sectors explains why these sectors remains one of the most corrupt according to Afro-Baromenter (2015) [1]. The fact that bribery and corruption are so widespread across all government levels and sectors indicates that the laws governing bribery and corruption are inconsistenly enforced [3].

The Military Code of Conduct (Law n° 2016-1109 Portant Code de la Fonction militaire, Official Journal, 16 February 2016) (1) does not prohibit bribery for soliciting for preferred posting in the defence and security sectors. There are no known policies or rules against bribery for soliciting preferred postings within the defence and security sectors specifically. However, the Criminal Code and Order No. 2013-660 (as amended by Act No. 2013-875 of 23 December 2013), both documents consider the soliciting, offering and receiving of payments for the performance or non-performance of a public official’s function, a criminal offence (1), (2).

As per Order No. 660, Article 1, the scope of application defining a “public official” would de jure cover personnel in the defence sector because it applies to “any person acting on behalf of the State and/or with State resources”. This includes any public or ministerial officer (tout officier public ou ministériel) such as the personnel working at the Ministry of Defense or security officials (2), (3).

Following Act No. 2013-875 of 23 December 2013 ratifying Order No. 660 of 20 September 2013 on (ORDONNANCE no 2013-660 du 20 septembre 2013 relating to the prevention and fight against corruption and similar offences), bribery and influence peddling are codified offenses as per Articles 15, 16, 18 and 21 (2), (3).

The Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2017) states, “Bribery and trading in influence (arts. 15, 16, 18 and 21): The active and passive bribery of public officials (Order No. 660, art. 29) through the direct or indirect offering or promise to a public official of payment, gifts or benefits, or the acceptance or solicitation by a public official of a bribe, constitute an offence in Côte d’Ivoire” (3).

As per the Criminal Code (Law No. 81-640, Instituting the Penal Code), the act of offering, giving or promising a bribe to a public official or the act of soliciting, authorizing or receiving a bribe is considered a criminal offence. According to Articles 233 and 234, the act of soliciting or paying a public official to perform an official function is codified as a crime (4).

As per Article 1, of Order No. 660 (as amended), the scope of application defining a “public official” would de jure cover personnel in the defence sector (2). Bribery (offrir des cadeaux aux fonctionnaires, pots-de-vin, extorsion) and corruption are clearly defined offences that apply to defence personnel. Sanctions include more than one year of jail time, significant financial penalties and dismissal from the public office from six months to three years or even a permanent dismissal (2).

Order No. 660, (as amended) Article 29, 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 inaction of a public official. The penalties include 5-10 years of prison and a fine of 5 to 10 million FCFA. If the public official is a member of the Judiciary, the penalties are 10 years of prison and fines of up to 30 million FCFA (1), (2). Art. 30 – “Any public official shall be punished with 1-5 years of jail and penalties ranging from 100,000 to 1 million FCFA for soliciting or accepting a cash payment or in-kind payment (rétribution en espèces ou en nature) for him/herself or for a third party for an official act that has already been performed” (2). Furthermore, Order No. 660 (as amended), Article 63, establishes complementary penalties that apply to natural persons convicted of offences such as bribery. These include the person’s disqualification from holding public office for a period of six months to three years, as well as a permanent disqualification (interdiction définitive) (2). According to Art. 233 of the Criminal Code – “Any public official will be punished with imprisonment from three months to one year who is found guilty of soliciting or accepting a payment in cash or in kind for himself or for a third party, as compensation for an official act already performed.” According to Art. 234 – “Whoever seeks to obtain the accomplishment, the execution or the postponement of an act through favors or benefits provided for in Article 233, or who uses threats, promises, payments, gifts or presents or gives in to solicitations for corruption, even if he/she has not taken the initiative, will be punished with the same penalties as those provided for individuals convicted of corruption, whether the coercion or corruption has or has not produced its effect.” Article 233 punishes the individual who uses gifts or presents or gives in to solicitations tending to pay for an act already performed by one of the individuals referred to in Article 232 (3).

No public evidence found for enforcing sanctions against perpetrators in the defence ministry for soliciting bribes to gain preferred postings. Generally, there is an overwhelming lack of evidence that cases of bribery or corruption among defence personnel are investigated and prosecuted. The UNHCR Freedom in the World 2018 report on Côte d’Ivoire says, “corruption and bribery remain endemic, and particularly affect the judiciary, police, and government contracting operations. Perpetrators seldom face prosecution” (1). Although no evidence in open sources reported of MoD officials sanctioned or disqualified from public office as a result of bribery, the general lack of prosecutions for public officials involved in corruption reflects the cases of military and security officials as well.

Moreover, the High Authority for Good Governance (HABG) established by Order No. 660 to ensure that the provisions of the Order are enforced is highly criticized by Ivorian media as ineffective in terms of enforcement. See Q35B above (2), (3).

Law no. 232 of 1959 concerning service conditions and promotion for armed forces officers as well as other relevant laws and decrees does not mention a policy for refusing bribes to gain preferred postings (1). According to our sources, there are no known policies which are applied against brines to gain promotions (2), (3). As one source put it “such policies never existed for 35 years of my service, despite the fact the leadership knows about many cases of gifts for promotions” (4).

There are no sanctions as there are no policies or regulations that punish such activities. It is not defined as a risk and therefore, there are no policies or sanctions (1), (2), (3). Nowhere in relevant laws are sanctions for soliciting preferred postings through bribery mentioned.

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because, according to our sources, in the case of bribes, it is usually in the form of gifts and not money. And therefore, there are no known cases of persecution or sanctions being applied despite the evidence of corruption and bribery (nepotism) (1), (2), (3). There is no formal mechanism for sanctions when solicited preferred postings take place.

Section 239-245 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) criminalises corruption of and by a public officer or juror (“Every public officer or juror who commits corruption, or wilful oppression, or extortion, in respect of the duties of his office, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour” Section 239.1 and “Whoever corrupts any person in respect of any duties as a public officer or juror shall be guilty of a misdemeanour” section 239.2).

The definition of corruption is broad as it includes direct and indirect corruption by gift, promise, or the prospect of gaining any value, including the acceptance of a bribe (Section 244) or the promise of a bribe (Section 245) (1).

Corruption cases are prosecuted as misdemeanours, which upon conviction result in a maximum of three years in prison. However, in March 2017, the current finance minister announced the government’s intention to amend the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), to upgrade corruption to a felony offence, and increase the prison sentence to a maximum of 25 years (1).

Despite a strong legal and political framework, there are still significant gaps in the implementation of anti-bribery measures. A lack of funds and staff for the enforcement institutions are often cited. For instance, in July 2018, the Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition urged the government to properly resource and staff the bodies and law enforcement agencies involved in the fight against corruption (1).

To empower the law enforcement architecture, the current Akufo-Addo administration, established in July 2018 the Office of the Special Prosecutor (2).

Article 30 of Law No. 35 of the year 1966, Officers Service Law of the Armed Forces, issued in accordance with Article 126 of the Jordanian Constitution, clearly prohibits military personnel from offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting an item, which could potentially influence the actions of an official or another person in charge of public or legal duty [1]. However, although the policy, stipulated in Law No. 35 of the year 1966, does not explicitly specify bribes for preferred postings, it still applies to such incidents. There are clear policies that strictly apply to bribes within defence in the country. In addition to the specific legislation that relates to the armed forces, Jordan has a number of legislations and regulations that prohibit bribery in general. These include (1) The Civil Service Regulation No. 82/2013, (2) the bribery related provisions of the Jordanian Penal Code No. 16/196, (3) The Economic Crimes Law No. 11/1993, (4) the Anti-Corruption Commission Law No. 62/2006, and (5) The Higher Procurement Commission Regulation No. 50/1994 [2]. It is important to note here, whilst bribery is prohibited according to Article 30 of Law No. 35 of the year 1966, there are no sanctions imposed for it through the Military Penal Code [3], and thus bribery within the defence sector for preferred postings, or in general, is not considered a military crime.

There are clear policies against bribery that apply specifically to the defence sector [1, 2]. Even though sanctions are not set out in the military penal code [3], there are other provisions within the law that impose sanctions on bribery and those include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. The Penal Code distinguishes between two types of bribes, those made in return for (1) an illegitimate service, or (2) a legitimate service that is part of the duties of the official. Penalties include 3-20 years imprisonment for an illegitimate service, and two to three years imprisonment for a legitimate service [2]. There are sanctions imposed on bribery, and bribery is clearly defined as a crime in relation to defence personnel in Jordan.

Bribery is not condoned by the law and posts including prescription as soldiers, are gained through loyalty and relations, not through bribes. According to a military officer, accepting a bribe can harm one’s status within their tribe and their position in the armed forces. Therefore, most people avoid such practices [1,2,3].

There is no explicit policy against accepting bribes to gain preferred postings, but there is a policy of not accepting bribes for any reason, and there is a policy against trying to escape some of one’s military responsibilities, which could come in the form of attempting to get a comfortable position illegally. Article 58 of the military trials law says that those found guilty of attempting to do this can receive up to seven years in prison, and article 55 says that those who tried to escape some or all of their military responsibilities in any way could get up to three years in prison and a fine of about 990 USD (1).

Sanctions for accepting any form of bribe includes sentences of up to seven years in prison, although the financial sanctions are quite minimal and accepting bribes does not warrant dismissal (1).

It is unclear if sanctions are applied when bribery occurs. State auditors, journalists and activists did not know much about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). There are no credible media reports about this. The complete lack of information about the matter suggests that enforcement is weak, because these practices are common, according to the activists.

The Code of Military Justice identifies bribery as a criminal offence. However, the law does not elaborate on the various bribery offences serving as a way to influence the actions of officials (1).

Depending on the criminal offence, the sanctions range between prosecution, dismissal, and financial penalties. For example, for theft and embezzlement, sanctions can range between 1 to 3 years of imprisonment, and in some cases financial penalties (1). Furthermore, every soldier jailed for one or more months for a criminal offence is dismissed from the military, according to the Code of Military Justice (2).

Sanctions due to bribery are inconsistently applied. In the event of bribery prosecutions, the indicted officer(s) are discharged from the military (1). However, according to a source, cases of corruption have been superficially dealt with in the past, or they have been ignored (2). Nevertheless, recently some officers have been discharged from the military due to corruption cases (3).

The new general statutes for the armed forces and the national police do not contain any provisions prohibiting the payment of bribes to obtain preferred postings.¹ ²
However, Article 120 of the Penal Code clearly states that is illegal for all civil servants, whether employed in an administrative, judicial or military capacity, to “solicit or agree upon offers or promises”, “solicit or receive gifts or presents” to obtain “awards, medals, distinctions, rewards, posts, functions or employment or any other favours from a public authority”.³

Article 120 of the Penal Code states that is illegal for all civil servants, whether employed in an administrative, judicial or military capacity, to “solicit or agree upon offers or promises”, “solicit or receive gifts or presents” to obtain “awards, medals, distinctions, rewards, posts, functions or employment or any other favours from a public authority”.³ Anyone found guilty of bribery in these circumstances can face from five to ten years imprisonment and a fine of twice the value of the approved promises or things received or requested, unless that fine would be less than 100,000 CFA.³
Moreover, the new general statutes for the armed forces and the national police make clear that military or police officials found to have contravened the Penal Code can face suspension and dismissal.¹ ² Article 86 of the general statute of the police states that police officers who have violated their professional obligations or broken the Penal Code can be suspended by decree, with the approval of the minister responsible for security.² Article 150 notes that officers will be dismissed from their post if they are found to have committed a criminal act.² Meanwhile, Article 36 of the general statute for the armed forces states that they are subject to penal law and to the military code of justice.¹ Whenever an individual becomes subject to a judicial investigation, he or she is stood down from active service until a definitive judgement is made. Breaches of the military disciplinary code or criminal offences can lead to the Council of Ministers dismissing the offending individual and can result in either the temporary or permanent loss of their professional qualifications.¹

Sanctions are rarely applied in cases of bribery that occur during recruitment processes.
Corruption within the police force is widespread and the opportunities for rent-seeking activities mean that it has become commonplace for applicants to have to pay bribes to advance their applications for lucrative positions.¹ ² ³ Media reports are damning. One article states that “it is well known in our country that the recruitment processes in the police violate all the rules. To be sure of success, one has to have contacts or pay cash”.¹ In a previous article, the publication had reported on allegations of fraud in the recruitment of 170 police officers.¹ The authorities reportedly opened an investigation into the claims, but the assessor found no evidence of any punishments as of April 2018.¹
The Netherlands Institute for International Relations highlights that corruption is particularly visible in the police and security forces, where jobs are distributed as political favours and sold at a price.⁶ “A job in customs, for example, can allegedly be bought for 2 million CFA (3,023 EUR). According to a European expert with extensive knowledge of the Malian security and justice sector, some 80 percent of recruits join the security forces in this manner.⁶
Furthermore, allegations surfaced in March 2018 that Malian police officers serving in international UN missions were facing extortion from their superiors to continue working for the UN.⁴ Officers claim they are having to pay a 30,000 CFA (50 USD) contribution each month to “finance the activities of their bosses in Mali, without any further details”.⁴ The payments reportedly go to the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.⁴
At the beginning of 2018, the Malian government wrote to the UN asking for a reduction in the length of the contracts of their police officers serving with the UN from two years to 18 months.⁴ UN sources note Mali is the first country ever to do this: developing countries are typically keen to send their police officials on UN missions, where they can boost their capabilities and have their salaries paid for by the UN. As a result of this decision, 49 Malian police officers serving in Congo, Haiti, CAR and Sudan will return home earlier than planned. According to police sources, this is because these officers had refused to pay the 30,000 CFA monthly contribution.⁴ The assessor found no evidence to indicate that any investigations are taking place.
A defence attaché working in Bamako said that a Lieutenant Colonel within FAMA told him that corruption is so widespread that you must be corrupt to get promoted.⁷ In the defence attaché’s view, illicit payments don’t necessarily skew the system, but they lubricate it. Many people are appointed because of their capabilities, but they still need to pay.
Nevertheless, there are rare instances of corrupt officials being held accountable. In November 2016, the daughter of a military general, who worked as a cook at a police training school, was condemned to five years in prison and ordered to repay 75 million CFA (140,500 USD) to 95 victims.⁵ Sergeant Aminata Kané was found guilty of having solicited bribes to facilitate successful applications for posts in the customs authority, the police, the gendarmerie and the national guard.⁵ Applicants had been ‘encouraged’ to pay between 100,000 CFA and 5 million CFA to secure jobs within the security forces.⁵

No evidence of policies or rules against bribery for soliciting preferred postings was found (1)(2):
⁃ In particular, the Regulations on General Discipline of the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces do not mention policies, rules or mechanisms against bribery for soliciting preferred postings within the military.
⁃ The new anti-corruption platform does not refer to bribery for soliciting preferred postings.

Moreover, the interviewees support the idea that bribery is widely practiced in this context (3)(4). This issue concerns other sectors, such as the police, local administration, public health and education personnel. This situation was referred to in a Wikileaks cable, which, although dated, is the last concrete evidence of the existence of bribery for soliciting preferred postings. According to it, military academy students bribe members of the administration to increase their class standings and obtain more lucrative positions or postings.

No evidence of sanctions for soliciting preferred postings through bribery was found (1)(2):
⁃ In particular, the Regulations on General Discipline of the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces do not mention sanctions against bribery for soliciting preferred postings within the military.
⁃ The new anti-corruption platform does not refer to bribery for soliciting preferred postings.

Moreover, the interviewees support the idea that bribery is widely practiced in this context, due to the lack of sanctions for people engaging in or benefiting from bribery (3)(4). This issue concerns other public sectors, such as the police, local administration, public health and education personnel. This situation was referred to in a Wikileaks cable, which, although dated, is the last concrete evidence of the existence of bribery for soliciting preferred postings and the lack of sanctions. According to it, military academy students bribe members of the administration to increase their class standings and obtain more lucrative positions or postings, without this being sanctioned.

Given that there is no legislation sanctioning bribery for postings, this sub-indicator is marked as non applicable.

Both the Military Code and the Public Penal Code address corruption in general terms without explicit references to a policy of refusing bribes for preferred postings. However, such policies can be inferred generally from both legal frameworks.

Article 228 of The Military Code of 2003, states that officers found guilty of corruption, theft or other general crimes can be dismissed, demoted or imprisoned. Bribery to gain preferred postings can be considered corruption, even though it is not explicitly mentioned.

Connected to this, Art. 228 states:

“A custodial sentence of at least three months, with or without stay, given to an officer or non-commissioned officer for any of the following can also entail the loss of rank:
1) bribery of public officials;
2) theft, fraud, breach of trust.”
(Consultant translation French to English)

The Public Penal Code, Section VII on Corruption and Influence Peddling (Trafic d’influence), Articles 130–133, which applies to civil servants including military officials, contains penalties for corruption and influence-peddling in more detail. The penalties extend to those who solicit or accept bribes, offer gifts or use a public office (including military officials):

“Any elected official, public, administrative or judicial official, military official or person treated as such, agent or employee of a public administration or of an administration under the control of the public authority, or citizen in charge of a public service, who
who solicits or accepts offers or promises or who receives donations or gifts, to act or not act on its functions or profession, even legal, but not subjected to salary, shall be punished by two to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 to 1,000,000 francs.”
(Consultant translation French to English)

According to recent research confirmed by interviewees, different forms of bribe occur to gain preferred postings (1), especially in the border regions subject to different kinds of trafficking (2, 3).

As mentioned in 44A, the language in the Military Code and Public Penal Codes does not explicitly mention the payment of bribes (pot-de-vin) to gain preferred postings. Such infractions are described generally in the Military Code (Article 228) and in more detail in the Public Penal Code (Articles 130–133).
The anti-corruption code, discussed in detail in question 35, would also apply to bribes for preferred postings. The 2003 Military Penal Code (1) 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 report to Ministry of Defence (Article 46). They are charged with finding and following up all infractions of the law (Article 47) at all levels of the armed forces (Article 48). Chapter III, Section 7 of the Public Penal Code (2) (applicable to all civil servants) also states that: Corruption and Influence Peddling will be punished with imprisonment of two to ten years and a fine of Fr 50,000-1,000,000 francs. The law extends to persons soliciting or accepting offers, promises, gifts or presents. This includes being given an elected office or other official or government positions (Art. 130). Any person who has requested or approved bids or promises, solicited or accepted gifts or presents, to obtain or attempt to get decorations, medals, honors or awards, squares, functions or jobs or favours granted by any public authority, markets, companies or other benefits arising from treaties with the public authority or, generally favourable decision of such authority or administration, and will and abused a real or supposed influence shall be punished with imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of 50000-1000000 francs (Art .132).

No evidence was found of such cases being investigated (1).

Section 98 of the Nigerian Criminal Code deals with the offence of corruption by defining what it is and describing its related offences (1), (2). Bribery offences defined under section 98 cover offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting property or of benefit of any kind (essentially any item of value) for oneself or any other person to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

The Nigerian Criminal Code prohibits bribery and corruption and also gives provision for sanctions (chapter four of the code) (1), (2).

Although the Code spells out penalties for bribery, penalties are not consistently applied to all people accused, tried and charged for bribery (1).

There is no specific legislation regarding bribery for soliciting preferred postings. Blanket anti-bribery legislation states any gifts, remuneration or commission, which affects an employees’ performance is prohibited under the Civil Service Law RD 120/2004 (1). RD 12/2011 “the Law on the Protection of Public Funds and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interests” prohibits preferential treatment without a justified reason in the public sector (2). The words bribery and corruption, are not used or defined within either piece of legislation (1), (2). However, bribery for soliciting a preferred posting would fall within the definition of gifts or remuneration in RD 120/2004, and RD 12/2011. In the defence sector, there is a lack of transparency over the selection process, no information is available around the selection of posts (2), (3), (4). Government bodies, such as the State Financial and Administrative Monitoring Institution and the National Center of Financial Information, investigation powers are overseen and limited by the public prosecution service (1).

The sanctions in place for soliciting preferred postings through bribery would fall within the general legislation mentioned in sub-section 44A, through RD 120/2004 and RD 12/2011 (1), (2), (3), (4). Punishments include a minimum fine equivalent to the bribe, up to ten years imprisonment, and the suspension of duties in office (2).

Enforcement of the above legislation including sanctions has occurred, but not concerning bribery to gain preferred postings (1), (2), (3), (4). No reports were found relating to the enforcement of sanctions in the defence or security sector (5), (6). Enforcements take place in the criminal courts, more specifically in the Courts of First Instance (7). While sanctions are enforced, there is insufficient evidence in the public realm to conclude that appropriate sanctions and punishments are regularly applied.

Bribery and corruption are defined as offences in the general law of the ACC (3). However, the law does not provide definitions, particularly on what constitutes soliciting or offering bribes. Bribery is not limited per se in ACC or the military apparatus law. The constitution mentions general misconduct and corruption offences (1), (2), (3).

According to the Military Service Law (Chapter 8, Articles 94-99), sanctions include criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties exist and may apply (1).

There are no known cases of military personnel who were prosecuted or punished because of their engagement with corruption cases or bribery (1). If these practices were discovered, the investigation would likely be held internally and not end with a trial or penalties according to the law (1), (2).

Bribery and corruption are offences defined in law, however, not all aspects are defined offences. Law No. 11 (2004) of the penal code sets out clear rules in relation to bribery. [1,2] Article 72 states ‘whoever is condemned to imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years for an offence against the external or internal security of the State, in an offence of bribery, embezzlement, damage to public funds, forgery of money or government financial bills, arson, possession of explosives or intentional murder, shall be put by virtue of the law, after completing of his penalty, under police probation for a period equivalent to half of the term of his penalty, on the provision that the police probation shall not exceed five years’. This broad article does not define all aspects of bribery such as offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes, and the law does not refer specifically to bribery, nor does it refer specifically to bribes to gain preferred posting. Whilst bribery and corruption are defined offences in law, the definition is lacking some detail and specificity.

Sanctions exist in law. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. [3] Article 140 of the penal code states ‘any pubic officer who asks for or accepts, for himself or another party, money, benefit or a simple promise for something in return for undertaking any activity or abstaining from carrying out any activity under the remits of his office shall be considered a receiver of bribery; the penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and a fine not exceeding what he received or promised shall apply to him, provided that it shall not be less than five thousand Qatar Riyals (5000QR)’. [2] Article 142 states that the penalty of imprisonment of no more than seven years and a fine not exceeding 15,000QR shall apply to any public officer accepting money or benefits in return of a favour. Article 143 also penalises third party or intermediary handlers of bribes. This demonstrates that there are strict sanctions and rules in relation to bribes, and although these do not explicitly address bribes for preferred postings, these do apply to the defence sector.

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

The existence of anti-bribery policies and sanctions that apply to bribes to gain preferred postings within the defence sector, includes sanctions on the offenders. Such sanctions are applied whenever such crimes occur. [1] However, according to other sources, there have not been any of these cases within the military or the defence sector. [2]

The Anti-Bribery Law (1992) covers cases which result in the exchange of money for positions. There are explicit indications on recieving money but not on soliciting and payment. Preferred postings are either acquired as part of tribal quota in the army, for loyalty to the royal family or connections with the Saud family (1), (2). The Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), for example, while structured as a conventional military force, has traditionally drawn upon specific regional tribes for its recruits. This composition dates back to the early twentieth century and is based primarily on tribal affiliation and identity, with the first iteration of the SANG formed as a coalition of tribal war chiefs that were staunchly loyal to the country’s founding king, Abdulaziz ibn Saud (3), (4). These recruitment practices remain to the current day and are intended to guarantee continued loyalty to the regime. Furthermore, the separation of the SANG from the conventional armed forces, the former being under the administrative control of the Ministry of the National Guard while the latter operates under the Ministry of Defence, is effectively a counterbalance and bulwark against potential threats to the royal family that might arise from a cohesive and strong military (5), (6). Preferred postings in the SANG are likely awarded to members of prestigious and influential families that have historically proven their loyalty to the ruling family.

According to the law, and our sources, there are sanctions which can be more than one-year imprisonment and fines (1), (2). These sanctions include fines that demand 10 times the amount of the bribe and imprisonment of no more than 10 years for instances in which there are several findings of bribery, or less than 3 years imprisonment for other findings of bribery.

According to our sources, no sanctions are applied when bribery happens, as most cases of bribery are handled and solved informally most of the time (1), (2).

Article 2 and Article 8 of Law n° 2004-1, dated 14 January 2004, on national service, decree that any citizen aged between 20 and 35 years must perform a year of national service. Tunisia also has an element of voluntary conscription. In accordance with the aforementioned laws and regulations, recruits can choose to go on individual assignments agreeing to perform 21 days of training, and henceforth pay a monthly monetary contribution of 30 to 50 percent of their salary to the military (1). The legislation applicable to the defence sector does not include a specific policy warning against accepting bribes for avoiding conscription (2). However, there are a range of clearly defined offences in the Penal Code that clearly apply to bribery for avoiding compulsary conscription (3). These offences cover offering and giving (1) (the attempt is also punished (2)) receiving (3), or the soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty (4).

Possible sanctions include severe prison sentences (up to 10 years imprisonment) and considerable financial sanctions (une amende double de la valeur des cadeaux reçus ou des promesses agréées, sans qu’elle puisse être inférieure à dix mille dinars) (1). Law n° 67-20, dated 31 May 1967, on the General Status of the Military, allows for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against any military officer who commits ‘offences against honour’, such as bribery, theft, or violence, when in service or outside of it (2). In the case of a military officer being convicted of a criminal offence (like bribery), he would be dismissed from his post (3). Although these disciplinary measures are general in scope, they are applicable in cases of corruption.

According to our sources, there is strong evidence that bribery is investigated in a serious manner and the prosecution of it is taken very seriously in the judicial system of Tunis (1,2). Evidence shows that cases of bribery in conscription are prosecuted. The National Anti-corruption Authority (INLUCC) report for the year 2017 shows that 2 cases of corruption related to the General Directorate for conscription have been transmitted to the justice by the Ministry of Defence (3).

There is a range of clearly defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector concerning bribery. Although there is not a specific law that deals with ‘refusing bribes to gain preferred postings’, Federal Laws No. 6 and 7 of 2004, which specifically apply to the armed forces, define bribery and prohibits corruption within the defence sector (1). This article prohibits officers from accepting gifts of any sort whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly, from individuals, who are seeking a benefit through these gifts. There are strict policies relating to bribery within the armed forces, and bribery for preferred postings are not an exception. In addition to the Federal Law No. 6 and 7 of 2004, several laws also prohibit bribery generally in the country, such as the UAE Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 (as amended) (the “Penal Code”); the UAE Federal Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Civil Service; the Dubai Government Human Resources Management Law No. 27 of 2006; and the Abu Dhabi Law No. 1 of 2006 concerning Civil Service in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi (2), (3), (4).

As previously explained UAE laws include anti-bribery policies that apply to the defence sector concerning bribes to gain preferred postings. These laws and regulations provide harsh sanctions for bribes. Sanctions are not all clarified in the Federal Laws No. 6 and 7 relating to the Armed Forces, however, those are clearly defined in other federal laws and also apply to the defence sector (1). These sanctions include criminal prosecution, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties (2). For instance, the UAE’s Federal Penal Code includes imprisonment between 5 and 10 years, and financial penalties that depend on the value of the bribe, and include confiscation of bribe gifts or money from the individual. Federal Law No. 6 of 2004 also stipulates dismissal for violations of its articles, which include a clear paragraph on bribery in Article 47 (paragraph 2). There are appropriate, and sometimes harsh, sanctions on bribery and those certainly apply to bribes about gaining preferred postings (3), (4).

There are anti-bribery policies and sanctions that apply to any attempt to gain preferred postings within the defence sector. Paying bribes in UAE to gain posts does not exist as the senior and middle positions are appointed by royal decrees (1), (2).

Country Sort by Country 44a. Policy Sort By Subindicator 44b. Sanctions Sort By Subindicator 44c. Enforcement Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Angola 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Cameroon 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Ghana 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Jordan 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Kuwait 0 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Lebanon 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Mali 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Niger 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Oman 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Qatar 50 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
Saudi Arabia 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Tunisia 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
United Arab Emirates 100 / 100 100 / 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