Q58.

Is the defence procurement cycle process, from assessment of needs, through contract implementation and sign-off, all the way to asset disposal, disclosed to the public?

58a. Formal procedures

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

58b. Transparency

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

58c. Implementation

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

No evidence could be found that there is a formal defence procurement cycle. Some policies and formal procedures could be found in the Public Procurement Law but it is unclear what if any sections apply to the defence sector; also see the country’s last assessment (1).

Article 65 of the 2016 Public Procurement Law states, (2) that tenders should be published in the Official Bulletin of the Public Operator’s Markets (BOMOP) (3) and, at least, in two daily national newspapers, both in Arabic and at least one in another foreign language. The tender should also include, if possible, the price, the time limits for the contract and all other relevant information (2). There is no evidence that these regulations also apply to the defence realm. A 2014 Jane Report cites that military procurement is exempted from general procurement legislation (4). A 2017 Epicos report details that tenders for defence and security items are restricted (5). Public contracts that are “specific in nature” cannot be published in the BOMOP, which likely includes security items (Art. 158), (2).

There is no evidence that the entire defence procurement cycle is disclosed. The only document that might apply to defence procurements is the 2016 Public Procurement Law (1). The armed forces publish tenders on their websites. Tenders published in September, October, and November 2018 were only for non-military goods, such as the supply and installation of photographic equipment (2). An earlier report confirmed that large-scale procurements in the defence sector are conducted through restricted tenders. Open tenders are published only for smaller and less sensitive items (3), (4). No other information on the defence procurement cycle could be found on the website (2).

No evidence could be found that there is a formal defence procurement cycle. Some policies and formal procedures could be found in the Public Procurement Law but it is unclear what if any sections apply to the defence sector (1, 2, 3 ,4 ,5).

By law, only parts of the procurement cycle for defence (as well as other high-value contracts) are required to be disclosed publicly. Needs assessments and asset disposal procedures are commonly not disclosed (1).

The 2016 Public Procurement Law calls for the publication of two types of contracts: open tenders and restricted tenders by the previous qualification, both in the official gazette and the online public contracting website of the Ministry of Finance. Simplified procedure contracts (direct awards) above a given value (determined by the state budget law), require a publication of approvals as well as pre-review by the audit court (Art. 99). Non-publication counts as a procedural infraction and may be sanctioned by annulment (Art. 381) (1), (2).

The Finance Ministry’s oversight body, the National Public Procurement Service (SNCP), is tasked with setting up a public contracts database; however, in 2018 the SNCP stated that only a minority of public contracts and execution reports were being reported to them, often with incomplete information (1).

The public procurement law provides for disclosure of parts of the procurement process cycle (see Q58A); however, in practice disclosure is limited and incomplete (2), (3). Presidential authorisations for high-value contracts published in the official gazette provide limited information, as do summary references in state budget proposals (later in the procurement cycle). The audit court publishes its opinions and decisions online. Yet, the public database is incomplete, and many opinions deal with the lack of information provided by the contracting entities (2).

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

According to Article 6 of Law N° 039 (2016), this Act does not apply to contracts for works, supplies and services and public service delegations, where they relate to the needs of defence and national security that require secrecy or for which protection essential interests of the State is incompatible with publicity measures (1).

According to Article 6 of Law N° 039 (2016), this Act does not apply to contracts for works, supplies and services and public service delegations, where they relate to the needs of defence and national security that require secrecy or for which protection essential interests of the State is incompatible with publicity measures. A decree issued by the Council of Ministers specifies the rules that govern the acquisition of goods and services (1).

A decree issued by the Council of Ministers specifies the rules that govern the acquisition of goods and services (1).

Legislation that covers procurement in Cameroon exempts defence and security contracts (‘Special Contracts’) as per Article 71 of the Public Procurement Code (2018) [1]. There is no other evidence that the defence procurement cycle is formalised at all and there are no policies or procedures for the implementation process of the procurement cycle.

Legislation that covers procurement in Cameroon exempts defence and security contracts (‘Special Contracts’) as per Article 71 of the Public Procurement Code (2018) [1]. In addition, the defence procurement cycle is not disclosed.

There is no other evidence that the defence procurement cycle is formalised at all and there are no policies or procedures for the implementation process of the procurement cycle [1].

The defence procurement cycle from beginning to end is not subject to any legal requirement for public disclosure. Unlike other ministries in Côte d’Ivoire, the Ministry of Defence is not required to publish a national strategic plan for its procurement cycle (Plan National Stratégique de la Chaîne d’Approvisionnement).

The 2009 Code of Public Procurement, Article 18.2, makes it clear that the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior are exempt from administrative activities such as publication of purchases in the Official Journal for Procurement (Bulletin Officiel des Marchés Publics de la République de Côte d’Ivoire) (1). Art. 18 (2) states, “this program must be published in the Official Public Procurement Bulletin of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, and on the website of the Administrative Structure responsible for public procurement and if possible, in a newspaper with national circulation.” However, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Security are exempt from the publication of activities related to national security and defence. This exception also extends to all administrative entities directly engaged in national defence and security activities (1). There is no requirement for public disclosure that applies to purchases made by the Ministries of Defence and Interior.

From 2015-2018 certain aspects of the defence procurement cycle (chaîne d’approvisionnement) are disclosed, though only in a very abbreviated and general way. However, this does not happen as a result of any formal procedures. Additionally, information about the procurement cycle is sometimes revealed by Côte d’Ivoire’s international partners within the context of military partnerships involving the sale or donation of military equipment. For example, France’s Ministry of the Armed Forces publishes this kind of information in its official bulletin (Bulletin Officiel des Armées). In his book on African Armed Forces, Laurent Touchard explains how the Ivorian minister of defence negotiated with his French counterpart the acquisition of military patrol boats (RPB models) in 2016:

“In the logic of ramp-up and modernization, in August 2016, the three RPBs 33 from Raidco were received. In addition, the country wishes to obtain one or two other patrol boats, of size and capacity superior to those of the RPB 33. At the beginning of May, Alain Richard Donwahi and Jean-Yves Le Drian discussed the sale of at least one RPB 45, also manufactured by Raidco” (1).

In 2015, Intellivoire.net published an article about the delivery of an AW139 helicopter model by the Italian company Agusta Westland. However, this model appears to have been acquired by the executive for non-military purposes (2). In September 2018, the Strategic Bureau of Information on Defence Systems published an article about the delivery of eight Caiman or Cayman armoured vehicles in the first quarter of 2018. The seven-ton armoured vehicles were used during a military parade in Abidjan on 7 August 2018. They were assigned to the Gendarmerie Nationale and the Ivorian special forces. No details about the procurement cycle were provided, but the Caimans were produced at Factory No. 140 in Borisov, Belarus (3). On the same delivery of Caiman/Cayman armoured vehicles, Afrique sur 7 published an article on August 11, 2018, that disclosed that the government had embarked on a purchasing frenzy following the lifting of the UN arms embargo. According to the reporter, the Forces Armées de Côte d’Ivoire (FACI) had acquired Mi-24 helicopters, heavy airlifting Antonov models and battle tanks from several countries, including Belarus. This was all part of the modernization effort spearheaded by Minister of Defence Hamed Bakayoko and outlined in the Military Planning Act of 2016-2020. The reporter added that no information on the purchase of the armoured vehicles had been disclosed because of the classified status of such acquisitions:

“This information, long classified as a defense secret, has just been disclosed during the Independence Day. A Russian news agency published in June an article indicating that an African country – without naming it – was going to receive these 4 × 4 Cayman armored vehicles” (4).

Some general information about how armoured vehicles were acquired by Côte d’Ivoire eventually transpire to the public. However, no details about contracts, signoff and asset disposal are officially disclosed due to the absence of formal procedures.

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

According to our sources, the process of procurement at all levels is, not disclosed internally other than the committee or the commander in charge of the unit. Some procurements and tenders are not known to the majority of employees within the procurement or financial department (1), (2), (3), (4).

Several legal provisions allow and even encourage the secrecy of defence procurements. Examples include the Public Authorities’ Contracts Law no. 182 (2018) which allows the MoD and the MMP to make the procurement processes closed, limited or by direct order with no bidding process (1). As regards to arms procurement, it is not subject to any form of monitoring by the MoF or the CAA as per Law no. 204 (1957) (2). Moreover, Law no. 14 (1967) prohibits the publishing or broadcasting of any information or news about the armed forces and its formations, movement, armaments and personnel, and everything related to military and strategic aspects except after obtaining written approval from the director of the military intelligence department (3).

If they do exist, the policies or procedures for the implementation process of the procurement cycle are not known. (1), (2), (3), (4).

The entire defence procurement cycle is formalised and involves several committees at various levels within the MOD and the GAF. The procedures were harmonized with the introduction of the Public Procurement Act. For instance, both the MOD and the GAF have established tender committees mandated with reviewing and approving the procurement decisions to ensure value for money and enhance transparency. In addition, the MOD established the Audit Committee, which is tasked with ensuring the compliance of the procedures (1).

The procurement of non-hardware items for the armed forces generally conforms to laid down procurement regulations. However, the purchase of military hardware which involves huge amounts of money is generally shrouded in secrecy (2), (3), (4). Details of the procurement cycle are not made publicly available, and exceptions can be raised by the MOD and the GAF to avoid going through the tender process and procure directly to the single-source (5).

Contrary to other Ghanaian public institutions, the MOD procurement cycle is not disclosed to the public. For instance, the Ministry of Health publishes its procurement cycle (standard operating procedures for procurement in the public health sector) (1).

The procurement process of military assets is not completely open. The procurement of non-hardware items for the armed forces generally conforms to laid down procurement regulations. Although winners of major contracts are announced, along with general values of the tenders, specific details of procurement financials, inventory, maintenance and commissions are not disclosed (2), (3), (4), (5).

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

Military Supplies System No. 3 of the year 1995 [1] is the closest available law to procurement regulations in Jordan. Whilst the law has a defined formal procedure for defence procurement, this procedure does not cover all important aspects of procurement such as an assessment of needs or contract implementation and sign off. Some elements of the procurement are formalised. These elements include food, clothes, and logistical equipment, however, weapons and ammunition are never publicised [2,3].

Although Jordan has shown some effort to make aspects of its governmental procurement public, evidence points to the fact that the public does not have comprehensive information in relation to procurement [1]. The Directorate of Defence Procurement for the Jordanian Armed Forces sometimes posts tenders and calls for proposals for its needs [2], and there are also attempts to make governmental tenders available online through the Government Tenders Directorate [3]. However, other than e-tenders, the defence does not reveal any information about actual procurement cycles. The procurement procedures of many elements are advertised in an abbreviated format, where assets’ disposal and new purchases are announced — however, there are no references to whom, prices or needs assessments [4,5].

Military Supplies System No. 3 of the year 1995 [1] is the closest available law to procurement regulations in Jordan. Whilst the law has a defined formal procedure for defence procurement, this procedure does not cover all important aspects of procurement such as an assessment of needs or contract implementation and sign off. Some elements of the procurement are formalised. These elements include food, clothes, and logistical equipment, however, weapons and ammunition are never publicised [2,3].

The defence procurement cycle is partially formalised. Contract implementation, sign-off and asset disposal are formalised but the assessment of needs is generally missing, officials said (1, 2 and 3).

The public only has access to a total figure for the amount of money made off asset disposal from the Finance Ministry and the total expenditure of the security agencies, but it does not have access to the entire procurement cycle, officials said (1, 2 and 3).

Both the Finance Ministry and the SAB, the bodies that audit and write reports about the security institutions, do not disclose many aspects of the cycle like the assessment needs and the contract implementation.

The public is only aware of some procurement deals — usually the ones involving planes from Western countries, as mentioned in section 58 A.

Many believe that the only reason these deals got attention was because a spurned businessman with political connections and a rival offer stirred up public anger, to prompt an investigation and revoke the deal out of spite.

Since the area is sensitive, it does not get much media attention and security officials declined to speak about the matter but there is evidence nonetheless that there are serious shortcomings based on the basic questions we find lawmakers and auditors asking the Defence and Interior Ministers sometimes, which shows that these institutions are often not following procedures.

As indicated in Q57, Decrees no. 11573 and 11574 from 1968 are the legal decrees that formalize the LAF’s procurement policy, without foreign military’s assistance that have a different cycle (1). The decrees cover the defence sector’s “mode of contracting, the execution of works and the settlement of expenses” and “contract award, contract execution, special bids, funding and settlement of expenses”, respectively (1). Concerning asset disposal, the decree does not mention it. However, according to a source, disposal of military equipment requires the approval of the Council of Ministers (2).

The defence procurement cycle is disclosed in a very abbreviated format. Only the bidders who applied for the contract are the ones who are present at the time of announcing the accepted bids (1). (فض العروض). Accepted donations or military assistance by foreign countries make headlines without any details; US military assistance to Lebanon is an example of this (2).

Decrees no. 11573 and 11574 from 1968 layout the procedures for each step of the implementation process of the procurement cycle (1), (2), but they lack details on implementation (3).

Evidence suggests that formal procedures for public procurements exist but they are often not applied in practice, mainly due to Article 8 of the Code des Marches Publics, which allows for certain defence purchases to be exempt from standard procurement requirements.
In September 2015, the government introduced a new public procurement code (Code des Marchés Publics et des Délégations de Service Public), replacing the 2008 code. The code provides detailed definitions of all of the various tendering processes available to procurement managers (Article 2).¹ Article 34 outlines that an evaluation of needs must be carried out before issuing any tender for offers.¹ Article 10 lays out the criteria according to which the appropriate procurement process should be selected (open, restricted, negotiated etc).¹ There are also a whole series of articles that state how certain tenders should be conducted. For example, article 55 relates specifically to consultancy tenders, article 56 outlines the selection criteria for individual consultants, article 58 concerns direct contracting by private agreement and article 63 focuses on notice of competitive tendering.¹
However, since article 8 of the Code allows for certain defence purchases to be exempt from standard procurement requirements, such robust procedures are not always followed. When the IMF, the World Bank and the EU suspended their aid programmes to Mali following reports of the off-budget purchase of a new presidential jet in 2014, it was the BVG that audited the account (see Q16C). The BVG determined that the former Minister of Defence, Soumeylou Boubeye Maïga, and the Minister of the Economy incorrectly interpreted a legal clause that allows for certain acquisitions to be off-budget (see Q29A).⁸
The audit found that the government had spent 87.77 billion CFA (USD 163.44 million) on defence items that were not declared in the official budget.⁸ In addition to the presidential jet, which caught all the headlines, the audit also looked at the purchasing of equipment for the armed forces. The report found that 18.59 billion CFA went towards the presidential jet, while a further 69.18 billion CFA was spent on other military equipment, primarily transport vehicles.⁸ The BVG found that the MDAC had failed to respect the 2014 Finance Law requiring it to register these contracts and submit them as part of the annual budget. Moreover, many of the contracts were found to be heavily overpriced, strongly suggesting that these acquisitions involved substantial illicit activity.¹¹
– Lorries that can transport up to 5 tonnes of goods that normally cost 28.5 million CFA were priced at 78 million CFA in the contract.
– Lorries that can transport up to 10 tonnes that normally cost 34 million CFA were priced at 115 million CFA.
– Petrol-tankers that can carry up to 6 cubic metres of fuel, normally costing 29 million CFA were billed at 120 million CFA.
– And petrol-tankers that can carry up to 18 cubic metres of fuel, normally worth 38.5 million CFA were billed at 210 million CFA.¹¹
There is also substantial evidence showing that the MDAC regularly uses imprest accounts as a way of purchasing items without having to comply with procurement requirements. The IMF notes that “The execution of exceptional expenditures is subject to very minimal controls considering the amounts involved. In general, funds are released without prior proofs and receipts. The payment of the advance is subject to simplified controls, focusing primarily on the identity of the payment authorization officer and the amount of the advance. Control of the compliance of the expenditure being carried out, based on supporting documentation for the payment, takes place after the actual disbursement of the funds to a supplier or service provider”.⁴
The IMF also states that there are numerous deficiencies in the controls carried out, “particularly with respect to the imprest accounts of the defence and security forces in Mali”.⁴ It adds that “some imprest accounts receive quite substantial advances that go well beyond their original purpose of ‘minor operating expenditures’. For example, the special imprest account of the Ministry of Defence carries out monthly expenditures exceeding 2.3 billion CFA”.⁴ None of this spending is subject to standard procurement requirements.
There are reports in the Malian media, based on sources within the defence sector, alleging that fraudulent practices are commonplace at the Directorate of Finance and Equipment (DFM).⁵ Defence contracts are not subject to open and competitive tenders: instead they are often awarded to family members or close associates of defence officials.⁵ The acquisitions and sales of fixed assets are not supported by any justification or assessment of needs.⁵
Despite these cases, there is some evidence that the MDAC does occasionally comply with standard procurement requirements. For instance, in 2016, the Minister of Defence issued a public call for tender for a new IT system for the armed forces, which was likely to cost about 1 billion CFA.⁷ However, even in this case, it was unclear why the Defence Minister was issuing a public tender for an IT system that was already operation.⁷
The LOPM, which was passed into law in February 2015, can be considered as an evaluation of needs given that the document specified that it intended to recruit an additional 10,000 soldiers between 2015 and 2019 to plug the major gaps in the armed forces.⁶ The LOPM provides for USD2.3 billion of investment for the armed forces, including plans to purchase helicopters, aeroplanes and uniforms.⁶ Since then the Malian government has gone on to buy two used helicopters (Super Puma S 332 L) and two helicopters from Russia.⁸ ⁹
While these contracts were publically announced and the delivery of the helicopters widely reported, beyond these basic aspects there is no evidence that these deals followed standard procurement procedures. Indeed, there are allegations that many of the military’s recent deals have led to the state losing substantial sums of money through corruption precisely because standard procurement requirements have not been applied.¹⁰

In law, the procurement cycle for the public sector is extensively disclosed (see Q58A). However, defence purchases are often exempt from these requirements, meaning that the cycle is very opaque in reality.
The LOPM, which was passed into law in February 2015, can be considered as an evaluation of needs given that the document specified that it intended to recruit an additional 10,000 solider between 2015 and 2019 to plug the major gaps in the armed forces.⁶ The LOPM provides for USD 2.3 billion of investment for the armed forces, and includes plans to purchase helicopters, aeroplanes and uniforms.⁶ Since then, the Malian government has gone on to buy two helicopters (Super Puma S 332 L) and two helicopters from Russia.⁸ ⁹
However, in neither of these cases did the Ministry of Defence disclose how much it had paid for the helicopters or what criteria had been used to choose the suppliers. There is also substantial evidence showing that the MDAC regularly uses imprest accounts as a way of purchasing items without having to comply with procurement requirements. In 2014, the IMF noted that:
“The execution of exceptional expenditures is subject to very minimal controls considering the amounts involved. In general, funds are released without prior proofs and receipts. The payment of the advance is subject to simplified controls, focusing primarily on the identity of the payment authorisation officer and the amount of the advance. Control of the compliance of the expenditure being carried out, based on supporting documentation for the payment, takes place after the actual disbursement of the funds to a supplier or service provider”.⁴
The IMF also states that there are numerous deficiencies in the controls carried out, “particularly with respect to the imprest accounts of the defence and security forces in Mali”.⁴ It adds that “some imprest accounts receive quite substantial advances that go well beyond their original purpose of ‘minor operating expenditures’. For example, the special imprest account of the Ministry of Defence carries out monthly expenditures exceeding 2.3 billion CFA”.⁴ None of this spending is subject to standard procurement requirements.
There are reports in the Malian media, based on sources within the defence sector, alleging that fraudulent practices are commonplace at the Directorate of Finance and Equipment (DFM).⁵ Defence contracts are not subject to open and competitive tenders: instead they are often awarded to family members or close associates of defence officials.⁵ The acquisitions and sales of fixed assets are not supported by any justification or assessment of needs.⁵

Evidence suggests that formal procedures for public procurements exist but they are often not applied in practice, mainly due to Article 8 of the Code des Marches Publics, which allows for certain defence purchases to be exempt from standard procurement requirements (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10).

Defence and security procurements are exempt from most of the transparency requirements, either by not being included in the list of sectors concerned, or through explicit exemptions. Examples of exemptions include (1):

– Article 86: Procurement contracts for the Armed Forces can be agreed without prior publicity and bidding for tenders.

– Article 129: Procurement contracts for architectural consultancy can be agreed without prior publicity and bidding for tenders.

– Article 171: The National Defence Administration is exempt from the following conditions: budget restraints (Article 6), opening of the offers in public (Articles 17, 36, 46, 63, 104 and 121), publication of the estimated programme, market achievement report and a number of other documents (Article 147), use of electronic exchange procedures for documents and reverse electronic bids (Articles 148, 149 and 151), market audits and controls (Article 165), control over military equipment, weaponry and ammunition procurement contracts (Article 156).

Moreover, a number of military procurement contracts can benefit from the following conditions that usually do not apply: restricted bidding for tenders, no budget limit, no need for an administrative certificate. Based on these elements, there is therefore no evidence that the defence procurement cycle is formalised at all and that there are publicly available policies or procedures for the implementation process of the procurement cycle, which implies corruption risks. Yet, no NGO reports concrete cases of corruption in this situation. One interviewee (2) implied that the complete lack of access to information concerning the armed forces – including for NGOs – and not the absence of potential corruption explained this absence of reports on the subject. No further evidence of a formalised process was found.

No evidence pointing to the disclosure of the defence procurement cycle was found.

There is no evidence that the defence procurement cycle is formalised at all and that there are publicly available policies or procedures for the implementation process of the procurement cycle (See Q58A).

The defence procurement cycle is formalised and regulated by two decrees: the 2016 Code for Public Procurement (1) and the 2013 Decree that regulates security and defence acquisitions (2). The assessment of needs is regulated by a yearly acquisition plan defined in Articles 3 and 20. Drawn from the needs identified by the relevant technical departments of the Ministry of Defence, the acquisition plan is flexible and regularly updated. The plan is not available to the public and is classified as “top secret” (2).
Chapter III (Art. 6-13) explains the different qualifications required for candidates; Chapter IV (Art. 14-19) explains subcontracting; Chapter V (Art. 20 – 34) describes the procurement process itself, including provisions on the assessment of needs; Chapter VI (Art. 35 – 39) explains the approval and implementation processes; Chapter VII (Art. 40-41) explains the dematerialisation on the procedures, Chapter VIII (Art.42-49) covers guarantees; Chapter XI (Art. 50-53) covers eventual changes in the process of procurement; Chapter X (Art. 54 – 57) covers cancellation and adjournment, Chapter XI (Art. 58-70) covers payment; Chapter XII (Art.71-75) covers controls and sanctions.

All purchases for the MoD fall under either the 2016 Code for Public Procurement (1) or under the 2013 Decree (2) that regulates security and defence acquisitions. Therefore, acquisitions made under the 2016 Code may be disclosed to the public, but this is not the case for purchases made under the 2013 Decree, which requires confidentiality (Art. 2). Niger has signed military cooperation agreements with international and sub-regional partners. As a result, procurement and equipment donations are often lumped together. Niger’s partners mostly disclose donations. Some important acquisitions like helicopters or planes may be made public through local or international media. For example, on October 27, 2017, France’s Ministry of Defence published a report on its website describing a donation ceremony for a series of armed military vehicles in the presence of Niger’s Minister of Defence, Mohamed Bazoum (3).

The legislation includes policies and procedures for each step of the implementation process of the procurement cycle (1), (2). However, it is difficult to evaluate its effectiveness, and the extent to which these regulations are adhered to cannot be easily determined due to the confidential status of the procurement procedures mentioned in the Art.2 of the 2013 Decree. To sum up, Decree No. 2013/570/PRN/PM formalises the procurement cycle. However, due to the confidentiality of procedures regarding “secret items,” there are possible risks of shortcomings. It also prevents the evaluation of its effectiveness and the extent to which procedures are followed.

The defence procurement cycle is not formalised or disclosed to the public. Occasionally, there may be some limited disclosure for what is considered ‘non-sensitive’ issues notably none critical purchases. There are no formalised processes open to public scrutiny. The distinction is maintained between ‘civilian’ or non-sensitive purchases and weapons purchases (1). The latter provisions of the legislation are neither followed nor made public. It was confirmed by the source that non-sensitive items may be made public. Non-sensitive items may be disclosed under the Appropriations Act under the auspices of the Budget Office. Most recently, the purchase of 12 TUCANO jets by the FGN was covered extensively in the media (1). It is unclear what internal processes were followed in acquiring the weapons as details were only available in the press after the sales negotiation were concluded. This information was confirmed by the source in the MOD. Following the previous TI report, there has been some response by the Nigerian Air Force (NAF); however, the extent to which other limbs of the armed services have modified their processes is unclear. The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Sadique Abubakar recently stated that following the TI 2015 report “the NAF has since instituted various changes in the procurement process and procedure within the ambit of the Public Procurement Act 2007” (1).

There is no formal requirement which compels the disclosure of defence procurement cycle to the public. While it is agreed that some abridged procurement process exists, it is argued that the wide discretion exercised by senior military officials opens the door to a truncated process which can avoid the formalities required by the 2007 PPA. It is so arbitrary and includes wide discretionary powers that prevent it from being described as a ‘formal’ procedure (1).

The defence procurement cycle is not formalised or disclosed to the public. Occasionally, there may be some limited disclosure for what is considered ‘non-sensitive’ issues, notably none critical purchases. There are no formalised processes open to public scrutiny. The distinction is maintained between ‘civilian’ or non-sensitive purchases and weapons purchases (1). The latter, the provisions of the legislation are neither followed nor made public. It was confirmed by the source that non-sensitive items may be made public. None-sensitive items may be disclosed under the Appropriations Act under the auspices of the Budget Office. Most recently, the purchase of 12 TUCANO jets by the FGN was covered extensively in the media (1). It is unclear what internal processes were followed in acquiring the weapons as details were only available in the press after the sales negotiation were concluded. This information was confirmed by the source in MOD. Following the previous TI report, there has been some response by the Nigerian Air Force (NAF); however, the extent to which other limbs of the armed services have modified their processes is unclear. The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Sadique Abubakar recently stated that following the TI 2015 report “the NAF has since instituted various changes in the procurement process and procedure within the ambit of the Public Procurement Act 2007” (1). This led to the establishment of a Directorate of Procurement tasked with the responsibility of coordinating all procurement activities in the NAF. The Directorate of Procurement is staffed with well-trained technical and legal personnel to ensure that the NAF obtains value for money spent while at the same time, adhering to the law (1), (2).

“In addition, the NAF is vigorously following through on the government’s directive to deal directly with foreign governments that is (government to government), Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and authorised Equipment Maintenance Repair Organisations (MROs) in the acquisition of spares and/or maintenance of NAF equipment rather than with some third-party organisations. However, there have been challenges especially in dealing with some governments” (2), (3).

The defence procurement cycle is not formalised or disclosed to the public. Occasionally, there may be some limited disclosure for what is considered ‘non-sensitive’ issues notably none critical purchases. There are no formalised processes open to public scrutiny. The distinction is maintained between ‘civilian’ or non-sensitive purchases and weapons purchases (1). The latter provisions of the legislation are neither followed nor made public.

There are general guidelines and internal policies for procurement but they are unclear, vague and lack many elements. For example, what to report as corruption cases (single resource) (1), (2). There is no evidence to suggest that a formalized procurement cycle exists for defence purchases and contracts. As previously explained, while a Directorate of Procurement exists within the Ministry of Defence, no further information was found on their website (3), (4). Similarly, there are no policies regarding defence procurement cycles available on the e-Government portal or in media outlets disseminating royal decrees, where defence and security orientated legislation is decided (5), (6), (7).

There is no documented policy, the defence procurement cycle is not disclosed to any party, including the al-Shura council, institutions, or CSOs (1), (2). There is no transparency over defence procurements, with no instances of domestic media outlets writing about recent or past defence procurement (3), (4), (5). Neither the al-Shura, the consultative assembly nor the al-Dawla the State Council has the mandate to scrutinize issues around national security; therefore no information regarding the defence procurement cycle was found on either website (6).

There are general guidelines and internal policies for procurement but they are unclear, vague and lack many elements. For example, what to report as corruption cases (single resource) (1), (2). There is no evidence to suggest that a formalized procurement cycle exists for defence purchases and contracts. As previously explained, while a Directorate of Procurement exists within the Ministry of Defence, no further information was found on their website (3), (4). Similarly, there are no policies regarding defence procurement cycles available on the e-Government portal or in media outlets disseminating royal decrees, where defence and security orientated legislation is decided (5), (6), (7).

The procurement cycle process is formalized in terms of providing requirements for contract execution and disposal of assets so that these instructions are effectively complied with following the law. Acquisition of assets through the General Supplies Directorate is required to be done following the Procurement Law and in accordance with the clear working, procedures announced through the General Supplies Directorate website (1), (2).

The security and national forces procurement cycle is disclosed in the beginning (advertisement) for competition, however without clear explanations. Additionally, many elements from the list in score 4 are absent. This includes the assessment of needs, contract implementation and sign-off, asset disposal; the process of awarding contracts, and mechanisms for contract implementation (1), (2). The main factor in the transparency issue is that neither the government nor the security agencies are compelled to take the least expensive option for the purchase of assets or the highest price for the disposal of assets (3).

Acquisition of assets through the General Supplies Directorate is required to be done following the Procurement Law and in accordance with the clear working, procedures announced through the General Supplies Directorate website (1), (2).

The defence procurement cycle is partially formalized. There are internal guidelines and mechanisms in the armed forces and in other security agencies that regulate the procurement process [1,2]. This is due to the fact that the general state tender regulations and procurement cycles do not apply to the defence and security sectors [3]. There are also policies or procedures in place for the implementation of the procurement cycle. Such guidelines include the mechanism of bidding, the formation of committees, and the delivering of goods, as well as the budgeting. It has become apparent that according to the Government, each department within the defence and security sectors have their own procurement regulations. Defence and security sectors may choose certain bidders or select single suppliers in secret, without making bids and tenders public [3]. These factors demonstrate that there is no procurement cycle that includes all processes from needs to sign-off, and procurement is carried out without following basic international standards of procurement cycles.

Whilst in theory, each defence and security institution should have their own procurement cycle process, in practice, these processes are not formalised, are confidential, and do not follow international standards. Furthermore, defence and security institutions are excluded from state tender law no.24 (2015). [1] There is no evidence of public tenders, and there is no information about defence procurement. This supports the conclusion that the genuine defence procurement cycle is not disclosed. Material on procurement is not available to the public. In many cases, tenders are sent privately to companies that work in the sector, which makes it difficult for new companies to compete. [2,3]

There are internal guidelines and mechanisms in the armed forces and in other security agencies that regulate the procurement process [1,2]. This is due to the fact that the general state tender regulations and procurement cycles do not apply to the defence and security sectors [3]. There are also policies or procedures in place for the implementation of the procurement cycle. Such guidelines include the mechanism of bidding, the formation of committees, and the delivering of goods, as well as the budgeting. It has become apparent that each department within the defence and security sectors has their own procurement regulations that do not necessarily meet international standards [1,2].

According to our sources, there is a process which defines through regulations procurement within the MoD. However, this process lacks crucial elements, such as competition and internal auditing (1). According to another source, the cycle itself is ambiguous, and in some cases, it is arbitrary, for example, the regulation for oversight on deliverables does not happen, or changes in terms of purchases (2).

The defence procurement cycle is not disclosed to the public. Details of defence acquisitions are typically published after the fact, by international media outlets, rather than local media outlets (1). The procurement cycle is not published outside the MoD finance units. There are regulations, but they not well-defined (2), (3).

The policies and procedures are not clear, and the steps need more clarification. It gives room for different individuals and units to have different procedures and approaches to handling the procurement cycle (1,2).

According to our sources, since 2014 all procurement of the state’s ministries are formalised. The defence procurement cycle, from the assessment of needs, through contract implementation and sign-off, is formalised by Decree n°1039-2014, dated 13 March 2014, organising public procurement (1). Other legal texts formalise the necessity of making publicly available the process and the necessity of contracting through the online platform Tuneps (2) and procedure for exclusion from public contracts (3). Decree n° 88-36, dated 12 January 1988, on the special the procedure of control of expenditure of the Ministries of Defence and Interior, formalises different contract steps but it lacks detailed policies and procedures for each step of the implementation process of the procurement cycle (4).

According to our sources, there is a formal decree that obliges the state to make public procurement available, including military, but at present, the MoD fails to use these tools and all procurement cycles are still not made public. The reasons behind that, according to our sources, is the that MoD should have exemption because of the sensitivity of the current situation in the country [Political instability and terrorism] (1,2). Decree n°1039-2014, dated 13 March 2014, organising public procurement, as modified by Government Decree No. 416 of 2018, dated 11 May 2018, states the necessity of making publicly available the process and the necessity of contracting through the online platform Tuneps and the obligation of publishing the call for tenders in the press andon the website of the High Commission for public orders since 1 September 2018 for Ministries (3). However, the Ministry of Defence does not seem to use these platforms for the majority of its procurement as of yet (4,5).

As the laws are being implemented there is some unclarity in some articles and in the ongoing development of implementation and monitoring mechanisms. The gaps include the monitoring and evaluation effectivity (1,2).

Some elements of the defence procurement cycle are formalized through procurement, but there is no evidence that there is legislation in practice. In the UAE, defence sector procurement is partially privatized and managed by the Tawazun Economic Council, which is owned by the Tawazun Holding LLC (1), (2).

The UAE has no public reports disclosing its procurement cycle at any stage. It considered secret and confidential data that must not be shared outside the units. Furthermore, the majority of procurement run through state-owned companies and third parties. It is hard to obtain and to trace information on the procurement cycle (1), (2).

Although some policies and procedures are formalized for the procurement cycle, it is not always followed in practice (1), (2).

Country Sort by Country 58a. Formal procedures Sort By Subindicator 58b. Transparency Sort By Subindicator 58c. Implementation Sort By Subindicator
Algeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Angola 50 / 100 25 / 100 NEI
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Cameroon 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 0 / 100 25 / 100 NEI
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Ghana 100 / 100 0 / 100 NEI
Jordan 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Kuwait 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Lebanon 50 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Mali 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Niger 100 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Nigeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Oman 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 100 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Qatar 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Saudi Arabia 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Tunisia 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
United Arab Emirates 50 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100

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

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

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2020