Even if decision related to security sector is rare on the website, it is possible to notice that in the event of corruption-related offences, companies and their senior managers are excluded from public competition for a period of time. The period is set according to the seriousness of the offence committed [1]. The seriousness is assessed by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (ARMP), which has the power to impose such a penalty [2]. However, and according to the law, the Regulatory Authority did not exceed ten years of exclusion. In the event of a repeat offence, the ARMP pronounces permanent exclusion [3]. The ARMP publishes regularly the decisions taken on its website [3].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. We were unable to note any formal complaints made by companies against defence and security institutions during the period under review. On the ARMP website, the latest audit report on public procurement by the Ministry of Defense was published in 2020, covering the 2016 and 2017 financial years. The report indicates that no appeals had been noted over the period indicated. Also on the ARMP website, the last decision relating to an appeal concerning a Ministry of Defense public contract dates back to March 1, 2016. There is therefore no evidence of undue influence [1][2].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. The ARMP has a “red list” of excluded companies and has also made decisions on the exclusion of companies and procurement officials. However, no evidence has been found in these decisions, as well as in newspapers, that suppliers of the armed forces specifically have been convicted for corruption. [1][2][3][4]

The Public Procurement Code clearly stipulates that individuals or legal entities who have been convicted of corruption or who present clear evidence of corruption-related offences are excluded from the public procurement process [1] [2].

The lack of investigation or prosecution of corrupt suppliers is obvious [1]. In fact, most of the major suppliers in the defence sector have been implicated in serious cases of state corruption [1] [2]. In 2022, businessman François Uwiragiye supplied poor-quality construction materials to the army as part of the rehabilitation of a military camp. Paradoxically, the engineering officers in charge of the construction were threatened with sanctions if they continued to denounce the poor quality of the material. This was because the businessman was in cahoots with high-ranking army officers [1] [2] [3].

There is no information on any sanctions against corrupt suppliers and these corrupt suppliers continue to benefit from other contracts regardless of their previous performance [1] [2].

The exclusion of companies and of senior company officials involved in bribery is mentioned in the public procurement code, along with various other types of sanctions. The decree establishing the rules applicable to public enterprise procurement is even more explicit. Sanctions range from a ban on monitoring the execution of contracts to exclusion from public procurement; the details of the ban or suspension vary between two and three years.[1] However, this does not necessarily apply to the defence sector. Interestingly, the administrative and procedural manual of MINDEF vaguely outlines the procedure for approving or expelling companies at MINDEF, even though the reasons for their approval or expulsion are not specified [2]. Also the decision to approve or expel a company can only be made by the Minister of Defence or the President of the Republic, depending on the cases.[3]

The lack of transparency and refusal to disclose information about tenders or contract awards in the defence procurement cycle, along with the uncertainty of a fair and equitable project, contribute to the complete failure of investigations or prosecutions even when evidence is available.[1][2]

An offence can result in sanctions.[1][2] The only problem is, firstly, it seems they are not consistently applied or sanctions are not necessarily made public. Secondly and more importantly, the legal basis for applying those sanctions is lacking. There is no clear public or legal document stating which offence corresponds to which sanction within the defence sector. The public procurement code does include some relevant elements, but this is not applicable to the defence sector [3]. Therefore, perhaps some provisions of the the penal code, the military justice code, or other legal documents could be helpful. However, there is no legal document for applying such sanctions in cases of offences in defence procurements.

The regulations in force on the Ivorian public procurement market allow for the sanctioning and exclusion of companies from public contracts [1, 2]. They can also apply to the defence sector. Commercial courts and military courts can be used as tools. However, in practice, this is rare in the defence sector.

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. Such an indicator is difficult, if not impossible, to assess due to the absence of measures and the lack of mention of such a practice. The main obstacle is the lack of transparency in political and military management. [1][2]

Sanctions exist in the regulations and companies have already been sanctioned in the civilian sector, particularly in the building and public works sector and in road construction, and some companies have been suspended for a certain period [1]. There is also a red list of companies subject to sanctions drawn up by the ANRMP [3]. However, sanctions are extremely rare in the defence sector [3].

There is clear legislation that allows for the suspension of the procurement process upon the establishment of the Public Procurement Authority, following a complaint from either a bidder or the authority itself.(1). According to Section 82 of the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act 2016 (Act 914), a procurement contract can be suspended when any of the applicants within the procurement bid processes detect an infraction that may be admissible by the Public Procurement Authority Board or a court of competent jurisdiction (2)(3). Section 3q outlines that the PPA must maintain a debarment register and communicate it regularly to all procurement entities, which enables officials to exclude offending companies and officials from future participation. Moreover, Section 93 o the Act makes proviion for the prosecution of a participant of who engages in acts that amounts to corruptions as stated in the Criminal Offences Act, (Act 29), the sanctionary effect of corruption related matters may amount to not more than 25 years in prison as stated in the Criminal and Other Offences Act (Act 30) of which procurement breaches amounting to corruption is no exception. (2)(3).
These provisions establish a formal policy framework and implementing guidelines enabling procurement officials to exclude companies or senior officials based on convictions or credible evidence of bribery or corruption.

Cases of undue influence typically occur at the board level during investigations into procurement breaches. This makes the plaintiff’s efforts to pursue such cases at the court level, but there are restrictions on their admissibility, particularly in relation to decentralised government agencies. There are few cases of investigation since there are widespread cases of political interference in the whole process (1) (2) (3).

Companies that violate the procurement rules and companies and senior company officials implicated in bribery or corruption-related procurement offences may face debarment from future contracts under the provisions of the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act 2016 (Act 914). (1) Section 92 of the Act specifically criminalises corrupt practices in procurement, linking them to offences under the Criminal and Other Offences Act (Act 30). Convictions can carry sentences of up to 25 years, as indicated in Section 296(5) of Act 30.
There are few cases where such corruption-related provisions are enforced, partly due to political interference. Mahama Ayariga, the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, is pursuing a case and has submitted a petition to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) concerning procurement breaches in the construction of the new Bank of Ghana (BoG) Complex that he claims involve corrupt practices and potential abuse of procurement authority. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) received the petition in October 2023 and followed up with it on Monday, March 11, 2024. (2) Also, the Public Procurement Authority has blacklisted Markyei Company Limited from subsequent contracts due to procurement breaches, as the PPA cites the reason for debarment as “Submission of fake PPA Supplier registration certificate, in tender by the Department of Feeder Roads (DFR) for resealing and upgrading of roads in the Kwahu East and South and Birim South District, Eastern Region. A fraudulent action and an infringement of the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) as amended.” This was issued to take effect for a year from Wednesday 11th August 2021 to Wednesday 11th August 2022. (3) These examples show that while the legislative framework exists to sanction corruption-related procurement offences, in practice sanctions are applied irregularly, and cases are often resolved through administrative penalties such as debarment rather than full prosecution.

Section 176 and 177 provide for offences, sanctions, and penalties. Section 177 also covers loopholes such as, “a person convicted of an offence under the PPADA Act for which no penalty is provided shall be liable upon conviction—if the person is a natural person, to a fine not exceeding four million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both; if the person is a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding ten million shillings” [1]. The Public Audit Act empowers the Auditor-General, under Section 64, to report suppliers or companies involved in fraud or corrupt practices. The Auditor-General must report such cases to the police, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, or the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority for appropriate action. Additionally, the Office of the Auditor-General can recommend debarment of the offending company through the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority [2].

There has not yet been prosecution of individuals or companies following the outcome of the OAG’s special audit on MOD, looking into periods 2014-15, 2017-2018. While Cases of irregular procurement have been prosecuted through the courts, none of these are Defence related [1]. Since the entry of the new administration in September 2022, the Director of Public Prosecutions has withdrawn a number of such cases, raising concerns about Kenya’s fight against corruption. While these cases have no direct link to Defence procurement, the posture of the state on corruption poses several challenges [2].

The Debarment manual outlines the consequences of a debarment decision in Part 13. When a person is debarred, they remain obligated under any existing contracts with a procuring entity. The debarment lasts for at least three years, or as determined by the Debarment Committee. It applies to the debarred person’s successor in interest. For companies or partnerships, it extends to directors and partners. It also affects any legal entity where the debarred person has a controlling interest [1].
An offense can lead to prosecution and potential conviction. Debarment applies to firms, directors, and related companies where directors hold a majority stake. Section 41(b) introduces amendments on cross-jurisdictional debarment, covering East Africa, Multilateral Agencies, and Bilateral Agreements [2].
Currently there are 6 companies that have been debarred by PPRA notable 1 in 2021, 3 in 2022, 1 in 2023 and 1 in 2024. None of these companies appear on PPIP portal with the exception of one which was before its debarment [3].

Section 44(2) of the PPCC establishes that a potential bidder shall only be debarred from participation in procurement on the following grounds: –
(a) Provision of false information supplied in the process of submitting a bid;
(b) Collusion between the bidder and another bidder or a bidder and a public officer concerning the formulation of any part of the bidding documents or supply of
information in the bid proceedings;
(c) Connivance to interfere with the participation of competing bidders;
(d) Misconduct relating to the submission of bids, including corruption, collusion, price fixing, a pattern of underpricing of bids, breach of confidentiality, and any other misconduct implied under the Act.
Als
Furthermore, when a company is listed as bad-performance, it becomes ineligible to participate in any further competitive bidding process. In fact, depending on the magnitude of the violations, the company might face prosecution, for as such practices are likely to transgress on the conduct of the public financial law of Liberia.[2]

Liberia’s Public Procurement and Concessions Act (PPCA) provides for sanctions against suppliers engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices, including contract termination, damages, and debarment from future procurement opportunities.[1] Although the law/regulations require a public debarment list, we could not locate a current, dedicated online list of debarred suppliers on PPCC’s site.[2] This gap makes it hard to evidence the frequency and duration of supplier debarments in practice.
LACC’s 2024 Annual Report says 24 investigations were completed; 6 cases were forwarded for prosecution; 2 convictions were obtained; 1 hung jury; the remainder are ongoing. This shows cases do move, but not all result in convictions/sanctions.[3] Cases are sometimes investigated but not prosecuted.[4].
Defence-sector specifics are limited in the public domain. PPCC compliance bulletins show reporting gaps by some entities (e.g., MoD noncompliance with quarterly reporting in 2022), and national-security rules restrict disclosure, so defence-specific supplier sanctions are not publicly traceable.[5]

Although the law is clear on what action to take when collusion and other malpractices occur, there is little evidence to suggest that these sanctions are being applied accordingly. For example, reports on disbarment and blacklist in the PPCC process have returned empty in the search. Additionally, a report indicates that World Bank Group debarred Zoomlion Ghana Limited, a private enterprise based in Ghana, for a period of two years. Following an investigation into the allegation, Zoomlion acknowledged misconduct and wrongdoing. The information of Zoomlion disbarment is published on the World Bank website.[1][2][3][4]

The various penalties are set out in articles 18 to 21 of the Code of Ethics for Public Contracts (Decree 2006-343), depending on the offence. Article 20 of Decree No. 2006-343 establishing the Code of Ethics for Public Procurement stipulates that without prejudice to applicable criminal sanctions, any failure to comply with the provisions of this Code of Ethics on the part of a Candidate or a Holder will respectively result in a temporary exclusion of five years maximum or the termination of the market for wrongs and grievances [1].

Companies have been prosecuted for corruption. The most famous case is the conviction of the director of a large company to 5 years in prison [1]. But political pressure to defeat prosecutions is numerous and thus weakens the fight against corruption in the country [2]. Companies prosecuted and convicted remain rare. In order to open an investigation, the public prosecutor’s office must be contacted. However, the public prosecutor’s office reports directly to the Ministry of Justice, headed by a minister whose appointment is always political. In cases where the company in question belongs to someone close to the regime in power, the public prosecutor’s office does not always open an investigation or lets the case drag on.

Article 39 of Law No. 2016-020 on the Fight against Corruption stipulates that recidivism as well as any fraud for the purpose of breaking the 5-year ban on all companies convicted of corruption results in a definitive ban from competing and exercise in any public procurement or contractual transfers of management of public services [1]. The share of companies convicted remains low [2]. However, since Madagascar is known for its very high score in terms of corruption, this is undoubtedly explained by the lack of media coverage of cases linked to corruption involving defence companies.

The Directorate General for Public Procurement and Service Delegations, the regulatory authority of the same sector, the control bodies, and the justice system may each take part in this procedure according to its mission. Sanctions range from suspensions for given periods to legal proceedings, particularly via the Economic and Financial Division. Article 128 of the Public Procurement Code states that entities found guilty of acts of corruption by the relevant body can have their contracts confiscated and be banned from competing for public contracts for a variable period of time, the length of which is determined by the seriousness of the offence(s) committed.[1][2]

Sometimes, cases are investigated or prosecuted through official processes and sanctions may be applied to punish corrupt activities of suppliers and/or suppliers who do not fulfill their contractual obligations. For example, in the context of the audit of military equipment, more than 100 economic operators were heard by the economic and financial division.[1][2][3] Political influence may be there, but it is difficult to support it with evidence.

Military officers and economic operators have been arrested and placed under arrest warrant in connection with military equipment affairs.[1][2][3] These cases illustrate how violations have given rise to sanctions. Procedures were not respected both by the commissions and certain economic operators who were tenderers, and were guilty of violating the relevant texts.

There are legislation and implementing guidelines empowering procurement officials to exclude companies and senior company officials where there is a conviction or credible evidence of bribery & corruption related offences, as well as their accountability in accordance with the Statute of the Military of the Armed Forces of Defence of Mozambique [1], such as Military Disciplinary Rules [2], Military or Civil Criminal Legislation [3[[4][5], depending on specific cases.
For officers involved in illicit practices, sanctions may be: Warning for all managers to employees who are subordinate to them; Public Reprimand for all managers to employees who are subordinate to them; Fines for bosses; Demotion for Directors; Dismissal and Expulsion for all [5]. According to current legislation and the operating principles of public administration, all companies involved in illegal acts, corruption and bribery are banned from public tenders and held criminally liable, if necessary [5, 6].

In Mozambique, contracts must include an anti-corruption clause to prevent corrupt activities by suppliers, as required by Article 6 of Law No. 6/2004, of 17 June. This clause ensures that all parties commit to avoiding corrupt practices [1].
For individuals involved in corruption related to the provision of goods and services to the State, the Anti-Corruption Law imposes prison sentences of 2 to 8 years and fines of up to one year for those found guilty of engaging in corrupt acts or violating their duties [2]. This legal provision is enforced through the Strategy for Preventing and Combating Corruption [3].
In cases of public works contracts, acquisition of goods and provision of services to the state, if the supplier company (legal person) engages in acts of corruption or delivers goods and services with deficiencies, the contract is immediately cancelled. In the event of deficiencies, the goods or services must be returned and, the supplier is reported to the Functional Unit for Supervision of Acquisitions – UFSA of the Ministry of Economy and Finance and may no longer compete for the provision of any goods or services to the State. A report is then filed with the legal institutions to open criminal proceedings [4].
In the Defence and Security sector, apart from the case of the shipbuilding company French-Lebanese Privinvest Holding, whose managers corrupted members of the Mozambican Defence and Security Forces, and which was sentenced by the London Commercial Court to pay around US$2 billion to the Mozambican Government [5], there is no other case in the public domain. This may suggest that undue political influence is attempted, and sometimes effective at derailing prosecutions.

For employees, under the Public Probity Act [1] and the Anti-Corruption Act [2], an offence of this nature can result in a sentence of 2 to 8 years, payment of fines or disciplinary proceedings resulting in a warning, reprimand, demotion or expulsion. For companies, it can result in a range of sanctions, criminal prosecution, exclusion from current and future competitions or other sanctions [3], including heavy fines or imprisonment. The case of the five senior officials of the Ministry of Defence accused of making transfers to companies allegedly contracted for public contracts exemplifies this range of sactions [4]. In the case of public officials accused of transfers, the sanctions may include: loss of assets or values unlawfully added to their assets; full compensation for damages caused; imprisonment of between six months and five years; fines; expulsion from the profession; prohibition from contracting with the state or public companies or from receiving tax or credit benefits or incentives [5].

Niger’s 2013 decree on defence and security procurement (Article 75) provides a formal legal framework for sanctioning suppliers involved in corruption or other infractions. The decree lists a range of penalties, which can include:
• Exclusion from future procurement competitions
• Confiscation of the performance guarantee (“caution de bonne exécution”)
• Other administrative penalties applicable within the procurement process
These sanctions apply without prejudice to penal law, meaning that in theory, criminal penalties could also be pursued separately [1]. Article 74 of the decree defines various infractions, including bribery, collusion, and fraudulent misrepresentation, which could trigger these sanctions [1]. However, the February 23, 2024 Ordinance (No. 2024-05) severely weakened enforcement by removing defence procurement from standard public procurement laws. With defence contracts now exempt from competitive bidding and external oversight, the practical application of these sanctions has become highly uncertain [2]. While legal provisions for supplier exclusion remain in place, there is no evidence that they are enforced effectively under the current framework.

Despite legal provisions in the 2013 decree (Articles 74 and 75) outlining sanctions for corrupt suppliers, there is no evidence that cases of corruption in defence procurement are effectively investigated or prosecuted [1]. Niger has a history of high-profile defence corruption scandals, including the 2020 military procurement scandal, in which $120 million (71.8 billion CFA francs) was misappropriated through fraudulent contracts, collusion, and undelivered military equipment [2].
While an audit exposed significant procurement fraud, the case was ultimately covered up, and no meaningful legal consequences were imposed on the key figures involved. Some implicated individuals, including senior military officials, were later promoted to high-ranking government positions instead of being held accountable [3]. The February 23, 2024 Ordinance (No. 2024-05) further dismantled procurement oversight, allowing contracts to be awarded without competition or transparency. This change eliminated independent oversight mechanisms, making future investigations into procurement corruption even less likely [4]. Given this lack of enforcement and the history of impunity, corrupt suppliers continue to operate without fear of prosecution.

While legal provisions exist under Article 75 of the 2013 decree on defence and security procurement, which outline sanctions for corrupt suppliers, there is no clear evidence that these sanctions are applied in practice. The decree allows for penalties ranging from exclusion from procurement competitions to confiscation of performance guarantees, yet there is little transparency on whether these measures are enforced [1]. The 2020 military procurement scandal serves as a critical example of the failure to apply sanctions. Despite overwhelming evidence of corruption, key individuals implicated in the scandal, including senior military officials and suppliers, faced no meaningful consequences. Instead of being sanctioned, some officials involved were promoted to high-ranking government positions, reinforcing the perception of impunity [2]. The February 23, 2024 Ordinance (No. 2024-05) exempted defence contracts from public procurement regulations, making the enforcement of any sanctions even less likely. With no competitive bidding requirements and no independent oversight mechanisms, there is no guarantee that procurement officials will act on corruption-related offenses [3].

Part IV, section 8 of the Public Procurement Act outlines that a bidder may have its bid or
tender excluded from any particular procurement proceeding if :
(a) there is verifiable evidence that any supplier, contractor or consultant has given
or promised a gift of money or any tangible item, or has promised, offered or given
employment or any other benefit, item or a service that can be quantified in monetary
terms to a current or former employee of a procuring entity or the Bureau, in an
attempt to influence any action, or decision making of any procurement activity ;
(b) a supplier, contractor or consultant during the last three years failed to perform
or to provide due care in performance of any public procurement ;
(d) the bidder is in arrears regarding payment of due taxes, charges, pensions
or social insurance contributions;
(f) the bidder has in its management or is in any portion owned by any person
that has been validly sentence for a crime committed in connection with a
procurement proceeding [1].
Therefore, the Act provides clear guidance on exclusion of companies and senior company officials where there is a conviction or credible evidence of bribery & corruption related offences.

The PPA 2007, contains numerous procurement-related offences that stipulates sanctions such as imprisonment upon conviction, debarment from public procurement and fines [1]. In March 2020, for instance, the EFCC arrested the Managing Director of Richfield Technologies Limited, one of the companies implicated in a N35bn arms procurement fraud in the ministry of defence [2]. Similarly, the EFCC in December 2021 filed fraud charges against a former Chief of Army Staff, alongside an erstwhile Chief of Accounts and Budget of the Nigerian Army, and a former Director, Finance and Accounts of the Nigerian Army based on the report of the Committee on the Audit of Defence Equipment Procurement in the Nigerian Armed Forces from 2007- 2015. They were accused of misappropriation of N13 billion meant for arms purchase [3]. Defence suppliers and their accomplice found guilty of corrupt activities can face a variety of sanctions, including criminal prosecution, financial penalties, debarment, contract termination, and reputational damage. A source has noted that although there are instances of procurement fraud, corruption, political interference, and lack of transparency can sometimes hinder diligent prosecution of suspects or application of requisite penalties [4]. High-profile individuals or companies may use their influence to avoid or mitigate penalties.

On paper, conviction of offences should result in a variety of sanctions, including criminal prosecution, financial penalties, debarment, contract termination, and reputational damage. Despite cases of procurement and contract fraud often reported in the media [1] [2], there is apparently no effective prosecution or sanctioning for corruption-related offenses against participants involved in Nigeria’s defence procurement system. It is this seeming impunity that further emboldens corrupt actors and undermines the improvement of transparency and accountability. The misappropriation of public funds in procurement and contracting processes, which continues to erode Nigeria’s already limited public spending capacity, is further enabled by a weak and compromised judicial system [3].

When violations are established after a contract has been awarded, the sanction imposed may be accompanied by termination of the current contract or substitution by another company, at the risk and peril of the sanctioned offender. These sanctions may extend to the performance of the contract for future contracts. [1] In the event of serious misconduct, the Administration may substitute another person for the defaulting co-contractor to ensure the continuity of the public service [2] . Art.150 – Without prejudice to criminal prosecution and actions for compensation for the damage suffered by the contracting authority, the following sanctions may be imposed, and cumulatively as appropriate: confiscation of the guarantees provided by the offender in connection with the procurement procedures in which he has participated; exclusion from the right to compete for public contracts for a period determined according to the seriousness of the offence committed. Moreover, Article 29 states that any person involved in the award and performance of public contracts on behalf of a contracting authority, a candidate for a public contract or in any other capacity is required to comply with the rules of ethics relating in particular to the absence of participation in any active or passive corruption practice and must make any written declaration relating to this commitment that may be requested of them in accordance with the applicable regulations. [3] Ethical rule concerns all procurmement including defence.

After investigation ARCOP (ex-ARMP) declares admissible the appeal of OUMOU GROUP; Orders the suspension of the provisional award of the contract subject of the international invitation to tender (IIT) n° F_PTN_091-2022 concerning the acquisition of computer equipment for the data center, launched by the Project Management Unit of the Digital Technology Park (PTN), until the decision of the Litigation Commission of the ARCOP (ex-ARMP) Dispute Resolution Committee is pronounced. [1]
Decision N°009/2023/ARCOP (ex-ARMP)/CRD/SUS of 30 January 2023 of the Dispute Settlement Committee (CRD) ruling in litigation commission ordering the suspension of the procedure for the award of a contract by national call for tenders relating to security services for the premises and sites of the Société Nationale des HLM. [2] Some cases are investigated or prosecuted as part of formal proceedings, but there is sometimes political influence if the interests of certain people are involved, which can skew the proceedings. [3] [4]

In the past and for general procurement, evidence confirm occasional cases of businessmen or contractors prosecuted for bribery in connection with public works or municipal procurement. [1] However, there are no publicly documented cases of suppliers for the defence or security sector being prosecuted for bribery or corruption in Senegal.[2]

Under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, individuals convicted in terms of sections 12 and 13 of the Act dealing with offences related to contracting and procurement can be placed on a Register of Tender Defaulters [1]. In practice, this has not yet occurred. In terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, suppliers may be restricted from procuring with the public sector for past transgressions [2] and several companies have been placed on this register [3].

Very few cases of corruption have successfully been prosecuted particularly in relation to the findings of the State Capture Commission which revealed significant evidence of corruption [1]. The Commission likewise exposed undue political influence within law enforcement and intelligence agencies to undermine corruption investigations [2]. Although the state capture period falls outside the assessment period, investigations are still ongoing.

While criminal prosecution for fraud and corruption occurs, the rate of conviction is commonly considered inadequate [1]. Likewise, while individuals and companies have been sanctioned through their inclusion on the restricted suppliers database, the rate of sanctioning seemingly does not align with the frequency of procurement irregularities [2].

Chapter IV of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2018 explains the nature and processes of sanctions that companies which fail to meet the procurement act or engage in corrupt activities can face [1]. Section 81 on Suspension of Service providers states that “A provider or contractor that does not comply with this Act, or the regulations made under this Act, shall be suspended by the Authority from engaging in any public Procurement and Disposal of Assets activity for a period to be determined by the Authority on a case-by-case basis.”[1]

Corruption cases within South Sudan’s defence sector are not investigated or prosecuted through fully formal and independent processes, and they are rampantly influenced by political interests. For instance, a 2023 report by The Sentry detailed how multiple former army chiefs—such as Gabriel Jok Riak, James Hoth Mai, Paul Malong Awan, and others—have been implicated in large-scale financial misconduct, yet they have faced near-total impunity despite clear evidence of money laundering and corruption [1]. The report further asserts that President Kiir routinely intervenes in legal proceedings, especially when they involve allies or top military figures, ensuring that investigations into these actors are stalled or dropped [2]. While the government did launch a military court in mid 2025 to handle crimes including human rights abuses, it remains unclear whether it has the autonomy or mandate to prosecute high-level corruption among senior military officers .

While Sections (81) and (82) [1] of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2018 outline the sanctions which companies that have engaged in corruption should face. A search from local, regional and international media did not reveal any defence or security related sanctions being applied to corrupt companies despite concerns over corruption in procurement [2]. Key informants reached out to for information on this issue did not offer any response on the same [3].

Section 95 of PPDA, (1c-1g) lays out the sanctions available to the procuring and disposing entity. The guidelines empower procurement officials to exclude companies and senior company officials where there is a conviction or credible evidence of bribery and corruption-related offences. The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003 (PPDA Act) and its regulations, the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009, the Penal Code Act, 1950, The Uganda Defence Force Act, 2005 and the National Security Council Act, 2007 enlist some of the sanctions for corrupt activities by suppliers as follows: contract termination; blacklisting (up to 10 years); fines (up to UGX 200 million); criminal prosecution (imprisonment up to 10 years); asset forfeiture; debarment (up to 5 years), legal action (breach of contract, fraud); recovery of funds; disqualification (up to 5 years) and reputation damage [1] [2][3].

Independent oversight bodies like PPDA and Inspectorate of Government can investigate and recommend sanctions [1]. The Inspectorate of Government has investigated several corruption cases through formal processes, but undue political influence sometimes derails prosecutions. For example, in 2024 alone, 2322 complaints were received, 852 cases were investigated, 30 were arrested, and billions of Ugandan shillings were recovered [2][3][4]. High-ranking officials and politicians have been known to influence sanction decisions, favouring certain suppliers and facilitating collusion between procurement officials and vendors. This manipulation not only distorts fair competition but also entrenches corruption within the system[1].

The regulatory framework of the PPDA including sanctions for companies and a publicly available list of suspended entities, represents a positive step towards ensuring accountability in public procurement. Regulation 12 (4), which clarifies that suspension does not absolve service providers from existing contractual obligations, further strengthens the enforcement mechanism. While there are documented cases of officials being interdicted, dismissed, and funds recovered, these may represent instances where political pressure or public scrutiny made it difficult to ignore blatant violations. For example, the NRM hoped that by procuring more advanced weaponry, the UPDF would prove more effective in combating any Sudanese aggression and rebel activity. The purchase of four Mi-24 Helicopter Gunships would provide effective aerial firepower against the rebels. However, the procurement of these gunships created opportunities for military corruption and led to a huge political scandal throughout Uganda. Senior politicians and close family members to the Ugandan President received bribes in exchange for the defence contract and payments were made to intermediaries through a shelf company on the British-Virgin Islands [1]. The implication is that less visible or politically connected offenders may escape punishment, creating a perception of impunity. This selective enforcement erodes public trust in the PPDA and the overall procurement system. It suggests that the rule of law is not consistently applied, and that those with political clout can circumvent regulations with relative ease. The potential for such selective enforcement undermines the mandate of the PPDA and creates a system where fairness and transparency are compromised [2].

The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (PPDPA) of 2017 provides a legal framework allowing authorities to take formal action against suppliers implicated in procurement-related corruption or collusion. In particular:

Section 48(b) criminalizes bribery, procurement fraud, and collusion with possible criminal conviction. Subsection 41(1) authorizes the State Procurement Board to debar or blacklist suppliers found guilty under these sections, either permanently or for a defined period. [1][2]

The 2018 General Regulations under the Act clarify procedures for debarment, suspension, and appeals. Bidders or contractors may face caution letters, formal reprimands, suspensions (up to 12 months), or debarment for multiple years, depending on the severity of the offense [3].

Corruption and bribery violations including facilitation payments are criminalised under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which apply to all public sector actors, including military-affiliated contractors. In practice, several high-profile cases, such as the 2022 investigation into overpriced helicopter procurement, led to cabinet review and cabinet-ordered cancellations, though few contractors faced criminal charges themselves [3].
Serious enforcement against suppliers linked to military contracts is exceptionally rare—especially when senior military or political figures may be implicated. Contracts involving senior military figures are rarely contested, and the suppliers are hardly prosecuted in court” due to entrenched political protection [2].

Section 69 of the Public Procurement Act clearly states that any bidder convicted of bribery or corrupt behaviour must be removed from the procurement process and disqualified from future bidding opportunities [1].
In practice, however, there is no public record or registry showing that companies linked to high-value defence contracts have ever been blacklisted, and no disclosure of debarment actions by either the Ministry of Defence or PRAZ [2].
This absence of evidence comes despite widespread reporting of procurement irregularities suggesting either de facto non-enforcement or opacity in debarment records [3].