Q8.

Are there independent, well-resourced, and effective institutions within defence and security tasked with building integrity and countering corruption?

8a. Mandate and resources

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

8b. Independence

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

8c. Effectiveness

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

No information could be found on whether there is a unit within the defence and security sector that is missioned to fight corruption and building integrity. Generally, it is very difficult to find any information on the internal structure of the armed forces given the opaqueness of the military and political institutions, the so called “Pourvoir” (1, 2, and 6). No organigram of the armed forces could be found on the website of the armed forces that could provide further information on this matter (3).

Formally, the National Body for the Prevention and Fight against Corruption (ONPLC) is mandated to implement the national strategy on corruption. However, its legal framework does not provide any evidence that its mandate extends to the defence sector (4). According to Yazbeck, the military “has rejected any civilian effort to oversee internal military affairs, define national security policy, make military officers accountable to No information could be found on whether there is a unit within the defence and security sector that is mandated to fight corruption and build integrity. Generally, it is very difficult to find any information on the internal structure of the armed forces given the opaqueness of the military and political institutions, the so-called “Pourvoir” (1), (2), (6). No organigram of the armed forces could be found on the armed forces website that could provide further information on this matter (3).

Formally, the National Body for the Prevention and Fight against Corruption (ONPLC) is mandated to implement the national strategy on corruption. However, its legal framework does not provide any evidence that its mandate extends to the defence sector (4). According to Yazbeck, the military, “has rejected any civilian effort to oversee internal military affairs, define national security policy, make military officers accountable to civil courts, or diminish the military’s political functions” (2, p. 7), (5). Due to the current legal framework and military pushback, it is unlikely that the civilian ONPLC is allowed to build up integrity or counter corruption in the defence sector.

Since no institution is explicitly mandated to counter corruption in the defence sector, no assessment on independence can be made and the indicator is scored “Not Applicable”.
The ONPLC is supposed to implement the national strategy on corruption but its mandate does not seem to extend to the defence sector (1), (see the answer to question 8A). According to Yazbeck, the military, “has rejected any civilian effort to oversee internal military affairs, define national security policy, make military officers accountable to civil courts, or diminish the military’s political functions” (2, p. 7).

Since no institution is explicitly mandated to counter corruption in the defence sector, no assessment on independence can be made and the indicator is scored “Not Applicable”.
The ONPLC is supposed to implement the national strategy on corruption but its mandate does not seem to extend to the defence sector (1), (see the answer to question 8A). According to Yazbeck, the military, “has rejected any civilian effort to oversee internal military affairs, define national security policy, make military officers accountable to civil courts, or diminish the military’s political functions” (2, p. 7).

There is no institution in place specifically tasked with compliance and ethics throughout the defence sector, and so far, there is no evidence of efforts to establish such a unit (1).

Moreover, the Security Bureau of the Presidency (SBP), established in the 1990s as the Military Bureau of the Presidency, has existed as a powerful parallel military and intelligence structure that is accountable to the president only (2), (3). The new president, João Lourenço has by decree confirmed the same core functions and role of the SBP.

According to an Institute for Security Studies (ISS) (2017) report, “Incoming President Joao Lourenco will need to institute difficult economic reforms and restore the functioning of key state institutions. Reforming the security apparatus will be a challenge if Lourenco wants to streamline command and control and professionalise the sector … the fragility of the security apparatus needs to be addressed. Corruption and opaque arms procurement deals need to be curtailed; defence spending requires oversight.” (1). This indicates a lack of professionalism, continued corruption, and a lack of oversight or order in the sector.

There is no institution in place tasked with compliance and ethics within the defence sector (1), (2), (3). Thus, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

According to an Institute for Security Studies (ISS) (2017) report, “Incoming President Joao Lourenco will need to institute difficult economic reforms and restore the functioning of key state institutions. Reforming the security apparatus will be a challenge if Lourenco wants to streamline command and control and professionalise the sector … the fragility of the security apparatus needs to be addressed. Corruption and opaque arms procurement deals need to be curtailed; defence spending requires oversight.” (1). This indicates a lack of professionalism, continued corruption, and a lack of oversight or order in the sector.

There is no institution in place tasked with compliance and ethics within the defence sector (1), (2), (3). Thus, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

According to an Institute for Security Studies (ISS) (2017) report, “Incoming President Joao Lourenco will need to institute difficult economic reforms and restore the functioning of key state institutions. Reforming the security apparatus will be a challenge if Lourenco wants to streamline command and control and professionalise the sector … the fragility of the security apparatus needs to be addressed. Corruption and opaque arms procurement deals need to be curtailed; defence spending requires oversight.” (1). This indicates a lack of professionalism, continued corruption, and a lack of oversight or order in the sector.

There are no existing formal institutions within the defence sector with full corruption countering attributions and mandate. The gendarmerie is supposed to investigate cases of corruption within the security and defence sector; its reports are not made public (1).

However, the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption (ASCE-LA), has recently been given power, with a nationwide mandate to prosecute cases of corruption in any government institution, including the defence sector (2), (3). Even though the ASCE-LA has been provided with financial autonomy, there is no evidence that it has enough resources to perform well its mandate (3). The UNODC report (2018) states, “the budget of ASCE-LC is set under law at 0.1 per cent of the national budget, which should ensure the Authority’s independence and adequate funding (art. 59 of Organic Act No. 082-2015). In practice, however, the narrow interpretation of the budgetary provisions results in inadequate budget allocations” (4).

There are no existing formal institutions within the defence sector with full corruption countering attributions and mandate. The gendarmerie is supposed to investigate cases of corruption within the security and defence sector, but its reports are not made public (1).

The Office of the Inspection General (OIG) (2), as well as a “Contrôle général d’Etat” (The State General Control), the Gendarmerie nationale and the Military Justice have theoretical competencies to investigate possible corruptions cases. However, these institutions have no special mandate on corruption and are not independent institutions mandated to fight against corruption. The UNODC (2018) report states, “the budget of ASCE-LC is set under law at 0.1 per cent of the national budget, which should ensure the Authority’s independence and adequate funding (art. 59 of Organic Act No. 082-2015). In practice, however, the narrow interpretation of the budgetary provisions results in inadequate budget allocations” (3).

There are no existing formal institutions within the defence sector with full corruption countering attributions and mandate. The gendarmerie is supposed to investigate cases of corruption within the security and defence sector, but its reports are not made public (1). However, the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption (ASCE-LA), has recently been given power, with a nationwide mandate to prosecute cases of corruption in any government institution, including the defence sector (1), (2). Even though the ASCE-LA has been provided with financial autonomy, there is no evidence that it has enough resources to perform well its mandate (2). The UNODC report (2018) states, “the budget of ASCE-LC is set under law at 0.1 per cent of the national budget, which should ensure the Authority’s independence and adequate funding (art. 59 of Organic Act No. 082-2015). In practice, however, the narrow interpretation of the budgetary provisions results in inadequate budget allocations” (3).

The Ministry of Defence has an anti-corruption unit which oversees issues of corruption at the level of the ministerial department [1]. The country has several other oversight bodies which equally oversee corruption at the level of the different ministerial departments [2] [3]. The National Anti-Corruption Unit became operational in 2011 with a mandate to fight national corruption. The Superior State Audit Office (also know as the Ministry of Higher State Control)has a mandate to audit state institutions. There also exist the Finance and Budget Disciplinary Council and the Audit Bench of the Supreme Court [1]. However, these oversight bodies do not have the mandate to engage the defence and security sector in issues dealing with corruption [1].

The only structure that engages the Ministry of Defence in corruption-related issues is Military Security (SEMIL) which is in charge of countering corruption and is part of the Ministry of Defence. However, there is no information available on whether this body has the required staff and resources to address corruption within the military [1] [4].

Although there are several mechanisms for countering corruption in the country, the defence and security institutions are not usually subjected to oversight and independent structures [1]. Military Security (SEMIL), which is in charge of countering corruption, is part of the Ministry of Defence [2]. The Ministry of Defence also has an anti-corruption unit [2]. However, there is no evidence that these bodies are independent as they fall under the authority of the Ministry of Defence and are answerable to the Minister of Defence with no other oversight body over the Ministry of Defence [2]. The President of the Republic is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he governs the military and security sectors by decrees that are not subject to any independent oversight body [1]. The Minister of Defence and the Delegate General in charge of national security are appointed by the President of the Republic and can be dismissed without cause. Both of them implement the defence and security policies and are solely and directly answerable to the President of the Republic. The National Anticorruption Commission (CONAC) is said to be the country’s principal independent anti-corruption agency; yet it is subservient to the president and so lacks autonomy [3].

According to the United States Department of State and a senior military officer at the Ministry of Defence, there are mechanisms, including SEMIL and ‘Policing the Police’ (where police officers on check points are being checked by other police officers to monitor and investigate corruption and abuse), which have been put in place to address issues related to corruption within the military police [1] [2]. The Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister Delegate at the Presidency are assigned with the task of sanctioning abusers [2]. Cases of aggravated theft, criminal complicity, murder and other serious offences are sent to the criminal court [2]. In 2016, the National Delegation for Security and Gendarmerie carried out investigations and cases were forwarded to court. Lesser offences are handled internally and at different levels based on the category of the offence [2] [3].

The U.S. Department of State (2018) reports that “The national gendarmerie and the army have special offices to investigate abuse and corruption. The government has some mechanisms in place to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. The DGSN and gendarmerie have investigated reports of abuse and forwarded cases to the courts. Lesser sanctions are handled internally. The DGSN, Ministry of Defence, and Ministry of Justice have stated that members of security forces were sanctioned during the year for committing abuses, but few details are known about investigations or any subsequent accountability. The secretary of state for defence and the minister delegate at the presidency are in charge of prosecuting abusers. The minister delegate of defence refers cases involving aggravated theft, criminal complicity, murder, and other major offences to the military courts for trial… Military courts may exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offences including the following: offences committed by civilians in military establishments, terrorism, piracy… The law provides criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government did not implement the law effectively and often used it to settle political scores. The penal code identifies different offences as corruption, including influence peddling, involvement in prohibited employment, and non-declaration of conflict of interest. Reporting of corruption is encouraged through exempting whistleblowers from criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, corruption has remained pervasive at all levels of government” [2].

Most of the mandates of the units that target anti-corruption in Côte d’Ivoire extend only nominally to the defence sector. Additionally, the resources allocated by the Secrétariat National à la Gouvernance et au Renforcement des Capacités (SNGRC), tasked with endowing the units with public funds, remain unclear (1).

The broad-based anti-corruption units include:
– Plan National pour la Bonne Gouvernance et la Lutte Contre la Corruption (est. 2013)
– Brigade de Lutte Contre la Corruption, BLC (est. 2012)
– Haute Autorité pour la Bonne Gouvernance, HABG (est. 2014)

The anti-corruption entities that are specific to the defense and security sector include:
– Unité de Lutte Contre le Racket (est. 2012)
– Inspecteur Général des Forces Armées

The Brigade de Lutte Contre la Corruption (BLC) was established in 2012 within the Inspection Générale des Finances (IGF). In theory, it was set up to prevent corrupt behaviour based on reports of an incident. The BLC can carry out investigations with the resources provided by the IGF, which depends on the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and therefore on government funds. The independence of the BLC is compromised to the government’s willingness to fight corruption and promote transparency (1).

The Unité de Lutte contre le Racket was established in 2012 specifically to combat the bribery of police officers at roadblocks. Many roadblocks were set up illegally to extract bribes from drivers. According to a 2015 report by the US State Department, this anti-racketeering unit is underfunded and has not achieved its goal of ending illegal roadblocks because lower-ranking police agents are often complicit with higher-ranking officers. According to a 2015 report by Human Rights Watch, the country’s military courts have also proven ineffective in resolving the cases forwarded by this anti-racketeering unit (1).

Investigating financial crime falls within the mandate of the Audit Court (Cour des Comptes) and the Inspection Générale des Finances (IGF), mentioned above. The first is tasked with auditing all public expenditure (central government, state and regional entities), which in theory also include allocations to the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior. However, the IGF depends on the budget of the Ministry of Economy and Finance and is specifically tasked with oversight of public monies to prevent fraud and expenditure irregularities. Both the Cour des Comptes and the IGF are allegedly underfunded, which constrains their independence and effectiveness (1).

The Haute Autorité pour la Bonne Gouvernance (HABG) was established in 2013 but was rolled out in 2014. Its mandate is to prevent corrupt acts and to carry out investigations on corrupt behaviour in all sectors of society identifying those responsible and their accomplices. It is tasked with publishing regular reports and to forward cases of corruption to the public prosecutor (Ministère Public). According to Global Integrity (AII 2016), it is still too early to decide about its level of autonomy and effectiveness. However, Freedom House stated in 2015 that the HABG does not dispose of enough resources (1).

In terms of effectiveness, the direct dependence on government funds and poor resource allocation means that the anti-corruption units and entities in Côte d’Ivoire can be characterized as mostly ineffective.

According to the Freedom House country profile for Côte d’Ivoire (2018), corruption and bribery remain endemic and “particularly affect the judiciary, police, and government contracting operations”. Freedom House adds that the perpetrators seldom face prosecution (1).

However, Freedom House also mentioned the soldier rebellion at their barracks in Bouaké in January 2017, which included raids against the police and Gendarmerie Nationale by unidentified soldiers. In October 2017, a top aide to the President of the National Assembly (Guillaume Soro) was arrested in connection with the soldiers’ mutiny and accused of providing access to arms caches in Bouaké. For Freedom House, this proved that such threats from the soldiers are taken seriously and are prosecuted (1).

In its 2018 country report on Côte d’Ivoire, the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI 2018) states that the government has failed to set up a Special Tribunal for the Fight Against Corruption, which would be tasked with prosecuting the cases forwarded by anti-corruption bodies. The fact that such cases are never forwarded to courts points to ineffectiveness. The BTI 2018 adds that even the high-profile Cour des Comptes and the Inspecteur Général des Finances (IGF) are understaffed and therefore ineffective (2).

“The institutions meant to oversee the utilization of public funds (Inspecteur General des Finances, Cour des Comptes) are understaffed and thus not effective in preventing abuse and corruption.”

The BTI 2018 also labels the Haute Autorité pour la Bonne Gouvernance (HABG) as having questionable effectiveness because it is not a judicial body with the capacity to indict and sanction corrupt officials, including former rebel leaders (COMZONES) who have accumulated wealth and power in the north of the country under President Ouattara (2).

“The effectiveness of Ouattara’s anti-corruption policies and institutions remains to be seen. The HABG is involved in official investigations and publishes annual reports about its activities in the field of prevention, awareness-raising and investigation. It is, however, not a judicial body which could effectively sanction corrupt practices. So far there is still a notable lack of action against former rebel leaders who accumulated wealth during the military occupation of the north.”

There is a specialized unit (general inspector of the army) and another directorate (Morale affairs) that cooperate in most cases (1), (2), (3), (4). They organize field visits to different units to preach about the values and ethics of Islam and unity but have no strong authority over corruption cases. After having reviewed all relevant laws, by-laws and media platforms, no information was found regarding its staff, funding and mandate.

The head of the Inspection Authority is directly appointed by the minister of defence who has financial and political authority over these units (1), and whatever powers it might have are overshadowed by the powers given to the military justice system which has exclusive jurisdiction over investigating and prosecuting military personnel (2), (3), but whose members are also appointed by the minister of defence. It would then naturally come under the influence of top military executives as the minister of defence must be a military officer (3).

The general inspector of the army and the moral affairs unit have no authority over corruption cases. They are aware of corruption cases, but they are not aware of their risk and can not act and have no authority to act (1), (2), (3). Information about the staff of the Inspection Authority and the military courts and their operations is extremely scarce, and therefore it is very difficult to determine how effective they are. However, it is fair to say that how these units are structured makes their effectiveness questionable. For example, they are both considered departments of the MoD and their heads are appointed and removed by the minister of defence. All the justice institutions are subordinate to the MoD, including the Inspection Authority, Military Courts and Military Police and are considered mere “administrative units” of the ministry (4), (5).

There are several institutions mandated with oversight and prevention of corruption in Ghana, although not specifically the defence and security sectors: the Audit Service, the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI), the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO), and the Defence Intelligence in the Ghana Armed Forces.

The Department of Defence Intelligence investigates compliance with ethics and code of conduct in the armed forces, but not specifically mandated to fight corruption (1), (2), (3), (4).

The Audit Service, headed by the Auditor-General, audits the accounts of Ghana’s public offices, including the Ministry of Defence, and investigates all use of public funds (5). According to the Parliamentary Budget Committee, despite the recent injection of funds by the government (6), the funds allocated to the Audit Service are not adequately financed (7). For instance, there is a gap of GH¢ 34.67 million. Amongst its operational powers, the Auditor-General can lock and disallow the salaries of non-compliant public offices (8).

The CHRAJ has the explicit mandate of promoting integrity in public service and combat corruption in Ghana. The CHRAJ can investigate cases of corruption and work to “reduce opportunities for corruption in corruption-prone sectors by assisting to implement corruption prevention measures and putting in place robust systems for checking corruption” (9). Powers include demanding information for its investigations, requiring institutions or people to appear before the Commission and to go to court.

The CHRAJ’s Commissioner has recently recommended to the Constitutional Review and Implementation Committee (CRIC) to broaden the legal mandate of the Commission, particularly by allowing it to initiate investigations even in the absence of formal complaints by third parties (10).

The Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) is part of the Ghanaian national security services and it is tasked with fighting issues of corruption with particular reference to the defence and security sectors (11).

The Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO), which operates under the authority of the Attorney-General, investigates and prosecutes offences involving financial or economic losses for the state, money laundering, human trafficking, cyber activity, tax fraud and other offences. The mandate of EOCO is broad as it also includes corruption prevention measures. However, according to recent media reports, EOCO’s investigations are perceived by the public for being politically-driven, and the institution is not adequately funded and staffed (12).

Early this year, the government established the Office of the Public Prosecutor, with the mandate of investigating matters of corruption in government institutions (13). Because of its recent establishment, the Office of the Public Prosecutor is not yet fully operational.

These institutions are, at differing levels, under political control, and therefore lack of substantial independence. For instance, both the Auditor-General and the CHRAJ’s Commissioner are appointed by the government rather than the Parliament, something that raises concerns over their independence (1). As an intelligence agency, the BNI answers to the executive (2), while the EOCO reports to the Attorney-General, who is also appointed by the government (3).

It is difficult to assess the degree of effectiveness of these institutions with regards to the defence and security sectors. While the NACAP displays an in-depth understanding of the corruption risks, these do not specifically mention the defence and security sectors.

There are ethics units in the armed forces and its subsequent agencies. These units have the mandate to provide guidance and training. Besides that, there is an internal auditing unit within the financial department. However, it is understaffed and not well-trained on corruption and anti-corruption measures [1,2].

The institutions/ units may be under the command of the defence and security institutions that they oversee. However, they cannot be shut down by these institutions as they are part of the armed forces structure and hierarchy [1,2].

Staff are underprepared for such a job and fail to produce a plan to address corruption risks within their institutions. They lack the experience and the necessary trainings [1,2].

There are no special compliance and ethics units inside the interior and defence ministries but both functions are being carried out by the finance department in both institutions, according to officials (1, 2 and 3). These departments do not lack funding but their staff tend to lack expertise. Most tend to come from a business or a security background. Few studied law or accounting, but their mandate, which is not publicly available, is clear. They are meant to prevent the squandering of public funds and to investigate claims of corruption and any kind of misconduct, auditing officials said. Sometimes, for reasons these ministries do not give, these ministries establish temporary special committees to investigate corruption inside the institution, they added.

Lawmakers are more vocal about the interior ministry than they are about the military because the former is weaker than the latter.

In January 2017, the Parliament’s budgets committee leader, Adnan Abdel-Samad gave a press statement saying that the Interior Ministry’s financial department has been giving the SAB and other auditory agencies “conflicting data” and that it often fails to respond completely to all requests for information (4).

These finance departments are in the chain of command of the defence and security institutions and they can easily be shut down by the minister, according to auditing officials (1, 2 and 3). They are politically controlled by the ministers and other senior executive officials, as well as the Emir, who is the chief commander of the armed forces and the head of the executive branch. As a result, auditing bureaus and agencies in Kuwait tend to not give their reports, which are usually positive, much attention, officials said.

Staff within these finance departments are aware of corruption risks facing the institutions, but they are not encouraged to deliver a strategy to combat this. They are often not interested in doing so either because they are benefiting from the corruption themselves or are frustrated by the limitations imposed on them by the ministers, state auditors said (1, 2, 3 4 and 5). The Interior Minister and the Defence Minister have the legal right to decide how the funds of their institutions would be spent and how they will be monitored, according to article 24 of Law no. 23 of 1968 (6) for the police and article 27 of Law no. 32 of 1967 for the military. The ministers also have the right to decide if and how those who are found guilty of “losing or damaging” ministry funds would be punished. So these in-house units only have whatever power each minister has decided to give to them, and they are seen as the underlings of the ministers, officials say.

State auditors say these auditors tend to be only interested in tackling minor infractions, like reducing the salary of an officer as he was on the pay grade of a Master’s degree graduate, even though he only had an undergraduate degree (1, 2 and 3).

On June 26, 2019, the Parliament approved the Law on Combating Corruption in the Public sector which includes the creation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (1). Nevertheless, Lebanon has yet to establish the commission which is responsible for receiving and investigating corruption cases (2). The LAF does not have a specific unit for combating corruption (3). However, as previously indicated, the military police, that operates under LAF Command, is responsible for building integrity and investigating violations committed by military personnel (4). Its personnel undergo specialized courses, continuously (5). According to the LAF’s Directorate of Orientation, the military police ensures integrity and discipline of the soldiers (5).

The Anti-corruption Commission, that has yet to be established, should be independent and have a separate budget that funds its activities (1). The Military Police is within the LAF’s chain of command and reports to the LAF Command or the Military Court (2).

The LAF is aware of corruption risks, though it might not be at the unit level (1). It has conducted workshops for officers on combating corruption (2), including one with the LTA (1). However, it has not addressed risks independently and trained its forces on risk reduction other than the few workshops that take place regularly (3).

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.⁴ 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.⁴
A defence attaché working at a foreign embassy in Bamako confirmed that there is a military judicial system, in which the Inspector General plays a central role.⁷ 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.⁷ In any case, he noted that results of such investigations are rarely made public, raising questions about whether offenders have been sanctioned or not.⁷
A security expert said that the Inspector General is there to ensure compliance with the code of conduct, but does not have a specific mandate to root out corruption or build integrity.⁸ Article 9 of the Code stipulates that military personnel should avoid any conduct that could dishonour the force, but there is no explicit mention of corruption.⁹
Indeed, several articles note that there is a need to adopt a code of ethic and compliance within the armed forces if the government is to have any hope of eradicating abuses.¹ ² “To do this, there will need to be an ethics charter and a code of military deontology to be devised by collaboration between the Defence Minister, the Chief of Staff, the various unit leaders and the soldiers”.¹ ²

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

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.
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.⁴ The overt political calculations in this appointment and the very sudden lifting of Dembélé’s probation status indicate how deeply politicised and non-independent the Inspector General is.

As highlighted in 8A, the Inspector General does not have an explicit mandate to tackle corruption, meaning that the position is largely ineffective in this domain.
A defence attaché working at a foreign embassy in Bamako confirmed that there is a military judicial system.⁷ 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.⁷ Combined with the very controversial appointment of Dembélé as head of the Inspector General, the integrity and effectiveness of the body are severely compromised.

With regards to an effective anti-corruption policy for the defence sector, there was no evidence of compliance; there were no ethical units and not was there any effort to establish them. (1)(2)(3)(4)

Moreover, within the general context of anti-corruption, there seems to be no effective anti-corruption policy in any sector that could also apply to the defence sector.

In 2015, a law was passed to replace the Central Body for the Prevention of Corruption or ICPC (Instance centrale de prévention de la corruption) with the National Body for Probity, Prevention and Right against Corruption or INPPLC (Instance nationale de probité et de lutte contre la corruption) (INPPLC) (5). This law was followed by a series of announcements such as the adoption of a national project to fight against corruption; the signing of a framework agreement of ten programmes regarding 239 cross-sector projects; and the creation of relevant institutions such as the National Commission for anti-corruption (Commission Nationale Anti-Corruption). However, none of the above mentions neither explicitly nor implicitly the armed forces nor the defence sector. (6)(7)(8).

Also, despite the law from 2015, it appears that the National Body for Probity, Prevention and Right against Corruption has not yet been established. (9)

Additionally, the government announced that the National Anti-Corruption Commission was to become an institution in its own right. However, no action has been taken so far in this regard. (10)(11)

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because so far, the evidence gathered shows that there are no independent, well-resourced, or effective institutions within the defence and security sectors that could help build integrity and counter corruption. Moreover, the institutions that are tackling corruption in general are not performing efficiently so far.

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because so far, the evidence gathered shows that there are no independent, well-resourced, or effective institutions within the defence and security sectors that could help build integrity and counter corruption. Moreover, the institutions that are tackling corruption in general are not performing efficiently so far.

Defence and security services in Niger include different various institutions: the Niger Armed Forces (FAN), under the Ministry of Defence, are responsible for external security and, in some parts of the country, for internal security. Gendarmerie Nationale (GN), also under the Ministry of Defence, has primary responsibility for rural security. The National Guard of Niger (GNN), under the Ministry of the Interior’s Public Security, Decentralisation, and Customary and Religious Affairs (Ministry of Interior) is responsible for domestic security and the protection of high-level officials and the government buildings. The National Police also fall under the command of the Ministry of Interior and are responsible for urban law enforcement (2). 
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. Inspectors work under the supervision of the presidency (3). The IGA has 8 sub-divisions assisted by technical specialists (3).
Similarly, 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” (4). In addition, two external control mechanisms exist for the police: the direct hierarchy (responsibility of police commanders and field commanders to supervise and train their police officers) and the General Inspectorate of Security Services (IGSS), which is also the internal control mechanism for the Civil Protection and the GN (National Guard). The IGSS, which reports directly to the Ministry of the Interior, conducts fact-finding visits in the field. However, its capacity and the available resources are limited (5).
In 2014, the DCAF initiated a partnership with the IGSS which allowed the institution to reinforce its technical capacity. In 2017, DCAF conducted an institutional audit of the IGSS that highlighted the need for training for IGSS staff to address deficiencies in professional skills necessary for internal control activities. The DCAF started with training on internal control and auditing techniques, as well as risk management and budget (financial) oversight (6).
Finally, it should also be underlined that as the IGA, the IGSS is not provided with unit offices in the field and the approval of fact-finding missions is subject to a specific funding request (3, 7). Therefore, even though compliance and ethics units exist, there are weaknesses connected to staffing and funding that might potentially undermine the efficiency of these institutions.

The IGA depends directly on the Presidency of the Republic (1). Therefore, it is not in the chain of command of the Ministry of Defence that it oversees; however, under the Constitution, the president is also the supreme head of the armed forces. As to the IGSS, it depends directly on the Ministry of Interior (2). Both institutions (IGA and IGSS) depend on funding from their hierarchy to conduct evaluations and audit missions in the field. No information regarding the hypothesis of being shut down by the presidency of the Ministry of Interior was found.
However, as commander-in-chief of the Nigerien armed forces, theoretically, President of the Republic can shut down both units. As noted in 8A, neither the IGA nor the IGSS can be qualified as independent agencies. Furthermore, given funding problems (especially for the IGSS), sufficient independence does not seem to be possible.

According to an interviewee, the IGA could lead two forms of audit: planned and non-planned. The planned one conducts fact-finding visits to the field throughout the year. However, at the time of data collection in May 2018, the planned audit has not yet been implemented due to a lack of resources, such as fuel (1). The last audit conducted by the IGA in the field took place in 2017 (1). In general, the audit conducted by the IGA includes inspection of the number of personnel, armament, ammunition, cars, fuels, food and health services. According to the interviewee, control of munitions is very important as they may explode if too old (1). The audit control also verifies the training of the personnel, its capacity to use armament and to repair it if necessary (1).
However, it has been reported to the assessor, that a joint IGSS-IGA non-programmed audit is taking place in June 2018 to check corruption risks among the gendarmerie (1). Similar joint missions had already taken place through 2015-2017 (1,2). As a result of one of these joint missions conducted in Agadez in 2016, some security officers were revoked (2). Besides, IGSS and GIZ are also regularly conducting joint missions to raise awareness among the population about corruption risks, which are not audit missions (2).

The Office of the Director (Office of the Permanent Secretary) Special Duties was created to oversee the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Unit (ACTU). It has a Civilian Component which incorporates within it a Procurement Department. The corruption units efficacy is questionable as there are not organically integrated into the ministries as they are normally supervised or under the umbrella of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC). This raises questions about their funding and staffing levels as well as their operational effectiveness (1). There is also the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission with powers to investigate any person about financial crimes such as money laundering. The chairman of the Commission is appointed by the president but confirmed by the Senate (2). The EFCC is currently the lead agency in the prosecution of the military chiefs indicted for the abuse of the military procurement process between 2007 – 2015.

The Anti-Corruption and Transparency Unit (ACTU) is under the Ministry of Defence but is also under civilian control. The Unit is quasi-autonomous to the Ministry of Defence as it is a part of the Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission (1). The Office of the Director is located within the Office of the Permanent Secretary which is a civilian role; they report to the Permanent Secretary (2).

The NACS aims to “Strengthen the powers of anti-corruption institutions and other relevant bodies to prevent and proactively mainstream transparency and accountability measures in public and private institutions [Existing prevention platforms include ICPC Ethics and compliance checklist/scorecard, SERVICOM and Code of Conduct Asset Declaration measures]” (3 p.27).

The information available does not suggest that action plans have been prepared since the publication of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy document was published by the Ministry of Justice. There is a problem of coordination between all the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Units of the various MDAs (1), (2). Concerns remain about the efficacy of such units as media reports indicate that ACTU staff in other MDAs do not have the capacity or necessary training in ethics to successfully discharge their role.

There are no dedicated institutions in the defence or security sectors dedicated to countering corruption or building integrity within either sector. Within the armed forces, there is the moral guidance unit which provides training that does not include corruption per se, but it could mention it as part of the Islamic morals training (1), (2). Sources (3), (4) demonstrate security forces are used to combat corruption in other sectors such as police’s dedication to combatting crime and upholding the law in the private sector (3). The BTI report of 2018 describes the policy as follows, “Corruption falls under the aegis of a number of security services such as the Royal Oman Police, the Internal Security Services and the Ministry of Palace Office” (4). No reference is made to mandates within either the Ministry of Defence or the Royal Oman Police force (5), (6). There is no reference to any ”independent, well-resourced and effective institutions” that exist within defence and security institutions in the country. Neither is there any institution mandated and/or tasked with scrutinizing defence or security across Omani state apparatus.

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable because there are no compliance or ethics units in place in defence and security institutions.

No independent and well-resourced institute fights corruption within the army (1), (2), (3). Even the moral guidance unit is not independent and has no mandate for fighting corruption (4), (5). This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Oman does not have institutions or units tasked with building integrity and countering corruption within the defence and security sectors.

Corruption is not a major issue within the armed forces, and therefore, such units do not look at corruption as a risk or try to focus on it, even if it exists (1), (2), (3), (4). This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable as Oman does not have institutions or units tasked with building integrity and countering corruption within the defence and security sectors.

There is no designated commission or unit within the armed forces or the security forces that focus on corruption issues. However, as the PA admits that corruption exists within PA, they have a commission that deals with corruption issues within PA (1). The Anti Corruption Commission works as an anti-corruption institute for all PA agencies. Besides that, within the ministry of interior, there is a designated unit, “The General Directorate for Financial Auditing with the Military Service.” This department works on auditing the armed forces and national security agencies commercial work (2), (3).

There is a special control unit in all the constituent organs of the security forces to handle complaints, following a system approved by the Council of Ministers. However, it is not specifically oriented to corruption or ethics (4).

The Anticorruption Commission is not independent and has no authority. The minister of finance heads it, and as the national forces commanded by the president, their role is weak in countering or investigating corruption cases within the PNF. According to the law, the executive appoints, fires personnel, and ratify the laws of the commission. The president is the head of the state (PA) who selects the head of the Anti-Corruption Commission, as well as the head of all security and semi-military forces. Therefore, this commission is not independent of the executive (1), (2), (3).

Neither the department nor the Anti-Corruption Commission has an active plan. Appointments are made through nepotism and not a meritocracy. The commission failed to act against corruption cases within the PA. Their inability to address the issues sufficiently can be traced back to the fact that their actions need to be approved by the ruling political bodies, so the absence of effectiveness is very much linked to the absence of independence (1), (2).

It has become apparent through research, that the even though Qatar has an Audit Bureau, the mandate of the Audit Bureau explicitly excludes the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces [1]. Qatar does not have any independent well-resourced, and effective institutions within defence and security tasked with building integrity and countering corruption. According to our resources, there is a unit within the armed forces named, the “Ethical Guidance” unit. However, this unit is not independent, it is under-staffed, and it needs more resources [2,3].

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, because the country does not have any institutions or units within the defence sector specialised in building integrity and countering corruption [1,2].

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, because the country does not have any institutions or units within the defence sector specialised in building integrity and countering corruption [1,2].

Saudi Arabia does not have any institutions or compliance and ethics units solely dedicated to monitoring corruption in the security and defense sectors. There is a unit that provides Islamic teachings and ethics but does not cover corruption(3,4).
However, the GAMI (see above), established in August 2017, appears to act partly as an industry regulatory body. For example, one of its eleven stated targets is:

Establishing monitoring mechanisms for the military industry sector and its complementary industries and following up their application (1, 2).

The extent of GAMI’s oversight and compliance powers for the Saudi defense industry is as of yet unclear, and its charter has not been made publicly available. However, it does not appear to comprise a unit or agency solely focused on compliance and ethics oversight body in the defense and security industry.

Saudi Arabia does not have an institution or unit tasked with countering corruption in the defence and security industry, and therefore this sub-indicator is not applicable (1), (2).

Saudi Arabia does not have an institution or unit tasked with countering corruption in the defence and security industry, and therefore this sub-indicator is not applicable (1), (2).

According to our sources, there is a unit in every governmental institute which has the responsibility to fight corruption and enhance integrity. These units were created under the “Government Decree No. 2016-1158 of 12 August 2016, establishing the governance units and setting their attributions”, and a unit called “central governance unit” was created within each ministry, including the Ministries of Defence and the Interior (1). However, these units are not well-resourced and lack independent funding(2,3). The anti-corruption authority extends to defence institutions (4). The Anti-corruption Authority signed a convention with the Ministry of Defence intending to strengthen anti-corruption efforts in the Ministry of Defence (5). The Anti-corruption President often declares that his institution is underfunded (6). The Government decree mentioned above states that each public structure must provide the human and material means necessary to accomplish the tasks entrusted to the governance cell but there is no information available about the real funding and staffing of the Ministry of Defence’s central governance unit. (6)

According to our sources, the central governance units are independent and do not belong to the chain of the commander. However, these units are still linked financially to the MoD(5,6). These cells are responsible for many tasks relating to governance and the fight against corruption (prevention, planning, follow-up of corruption cases, coordination, cooperation, etc.) (1,2). These units report directly to the cabinet of the Minister of Defence. Central governance units are attached to the cabinet of the ministries (3). The Anti-corruption Commission (INLUCC) has recently signed an agreement with the Ministry of Defence. The partnership agreement aims to dedicate good governance and the principles of integrity and accountability, develop a bilateral training program in the areas of good governance and strengthen cooperation in raising awareness of the dangers of corruption (4).

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

According to our sources, the units are new and in the development phase, and are being resourced with expertise, and therefore, their effectiveness is still limited(1,2). Based on that, staff have been acquired and they are knowledgeable about what the corruption risks are and how to measure them and handle cases.

On several occasions, the UAE government announced plans to establish an anti-corruption unit, within the Ministry of Defence (1), (2). In 2015, the Abu Dhabi Executive Council issued an instruction to establish an Anti-Corruption Unit with the aim ‘to investigate corruption and financial violations; and to addresses deficiencies within the legislative framework to strengthen the defence mechanism and lead to a reduction in the number of corruption-related crimes’(3). In spite of these announcements, no evidence supports the existence of such units or even intentions to establish them in the defence sector (4). However, there are moral and religious units within the armed forces. These units preach and encourage good conduct in the armed forces (5).

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as there is no evidence of the existence of an anti-corruption unit in place, assessing the independence of a non-existent unit is irrelevant in this context (1), (2).

This sub-indicator has been marked as Not Applicable, as there is no evidence of the existence of an anti-corruption unit in place, assessing the independence of a non-existent unit is irrelevant in this context (1), (2).

Country Sort by Country 8a. Mandate and resources Sort By Subindicator 8b. Independence Sort By Subindicator 8c. Effectiveness Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 NA NA
Angola 0 / 100 NA NA
Burkina Faso 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Cameroon 50 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Egypt 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Ghana 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Jordan 50 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Lebanon 50 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Mali 50 / 100 NEI 0 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 NA NA
Niger 50 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Nigeria 50 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100
Oman 0 / 100 NA NA
Palestine 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Qatar 0 / 100 NA NA
Saudi Arabia 25 / 100 NA NA
Tunisia 50 / 100 50 / 100 NEI
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