By Nkechi Eze
Nigeria’s defence and security sector has been assessed as facing “high to critical” corruption risks, according to the 2025 Government Defence Integrity Index (GDI) released by Transparency International Defence and Security in collaboration with Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)/Transparency International Nigeria.
The report, which evaluated 17 countries across Sub-Saharan Africa, examined defence institutions across five key risk areas financial, operational, personnel, political, and procurement, highlighting systemic weaknesses that increase vulnerability to conflict, instability, and human rights abuses where safeguards are weak or absent.
The findings come amid persistent security challenges across the region, rising militarisation, and growing defence budgets, with oversight mechanisms struggling to keep pace.
Across Sub-Saharan Africa, military operations recorded the lowest scores, with a regional average of just 12 out of 100 (Band F). The report found that none of the assessed countries including Nigeria has a military doctrine that addresses corruption risks at strategic, operational, or tactical levels during peacekeeping or internal deployments. Accountability mechanisms remain weak or non-existent, while limited transparency creates opportunities for misuse of resources.
The report warned that in a region already facing internal conflicts and unconstitutional changes of government, the absence of anti-corruption safeguards in military operations significantly increases the risk that troops may fuel, rather than contain, instability.
In Nigeria, ongoing security crises including insurgency in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, and farmer-herder conflicts in the Middle Belt continue to strain state authority and test the resilience of public institutions.
Despite Nigeria’s role as a key regional security actor and major recipient of international security assistance, the report noted that defence governance reforms have progressed unevenly. Civilian oversight remains constrained by weak enforcement, outdated and sometimes contradictory legal frameworks, limited technical capacity, restricted transparency, and recurring allegations of human rights violations.
Overall, Nigeria was rated “very high risk” in the 2025 GDI, with detailed scores showing financial risk at 16/100 (critical, Band F), operational risk at 12/100 (critical, Band F), procurement risk at 23/100 (very high, Band E), personnel risk at 50/100 (moderate, Band C), and political risk at 37/100 (high, Band D).
On political risks, the report acknowledged that while the National Assembly has formal powers to scrutinise defence policy and spending, oversight remains largely reactive and weakened by limited expertise, frequent committee turnover, conflicts of interest, and patronage-driven appointments. The Auditor-General, though constitutionally mandated to audit defence expenditure, faces delays, outdated legal frameworks, weak follow-up mechanisms, and underfunding.
Financial transparency was identified as one of the most critical weaknesses, with large portions of defence spending shielded through classification, security votes, and off-budget mechanisms. Actual expenditure is rarely disclosed, while defence-linked enterprises operate with minimal transparency. Although budgets are published, they reflect planned allocations rather than actual spending, with limited scrutiny of supplementary and classified expenditures.
Personnel management shows mixed results. While hundreds of military personnel have faced court-martial between 2019 and 2023, including senior officers convicted of corruption-related offences, challenges persist around payroll integrity, transparency in personnel records, and participation in the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS). Asset declaration compliance remains low, whistleblowing mechanisms are weak, and promotion processes are often opaque and vulnerable to patronage.
Operational risks were identified as the most severe. The report found no clear framework integrating anti-corruption considerations into military planning or command structures. Monitoring remains irregular, training for commanders is limited, and there are no dedicated guidelines for managing corruption risks in deployment contracting or peacekeeping operations. Procurement tied to operations particularly in the fight against Boko Haram and other threats continues to be conducted with minimal public disclosure.
Procurement processes were also flagged as highly vulnerable. Despite the Public Procurement Act (2007), most defence acquisitions are exempted on national security grounds and treated as classified. Open competition is rare, and the procurement cycle remains opaque, while oversight institutions face restricted access to information and weak enforcement capacity. Legal safeguards exist but are largely ineffective in practice.
The report also highlighted broader regional concerns, noting that oversight institutions across Sub-Saharan Africa often operate with limited authority due to executive dominance, while restricted access to information undermines effective scrutiny. Civic space is severely constrained, with 76 per cent of assessed countries including Nigeria rated as having very weak or no civic engagement in defence matters.
Reacting to the findings, Patrick Brobbey, Research Manager at Transparency International Defence and Security, said the report presents a troubling outlook for the region.
“These findings paint a stark picture of defence governance across Sub-Saharan Africa. Corruption risks are high to critical in every country we assessed, and the weakest area military operations is exactly where the stakes for civilian populations are highest,” he said.
He urged governments to take urgent steps to improve transparency and accountability, adding: “They must open up defence budgets to proper scrutiny, strengthen parliamentary oversight and give civil society a genuine seat at the table. Without that, corruption will continue to eat away at the security these institutions are supposed to provide.”
Also commenting, Francesca Grandi warned that the absence of anti-corruption safeguards in military doctrine represents a critical failure in defence governance.
“Of the 17 countries we assessed, not one has military doctrine that treats corruption as an operational risk. That is a critical gap,” she said. “When troops deploy without anti-corruption safeguards, the consequences are paid by the civilians they are supposed to protect.”
She further cautioned that rising defence budgets, if not matched with reforms, could deepen corruption risks and undermine security outcomes.
The report concluded that without stronger oversight, improved transparency, and meaningful civic engagement, corruption will continue to undermine Nigeria’s defence sector, weaken operational effectiveness, and divert critical resources away from citizens.
