• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Sierra Leone - Military Spending

Financial control and accountability plays an important part in the overall control and accountability of the RSLAF, and is exercised by Parliament through the MOD where the DG carries overall responsibility. There is a need to improve both the planning and allocation of resources, and the oversight of how or on what the money was spent. The Government recognises that the RSLAF will not enjoy the confidence and trust of the population at large unless its use of the public's money is transparent and wholly accountable.

In common with all other government ministries/departments, the MOD prepares its detailed plans and estimates for a 3-year period using the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) methodology. Defence plans are intended to be supportive of the Government's Poverty Reduction Strategy. The MOD adopted the MTEF process and internally developed a robust and transparent approach. The MOD issues detailed Defence Planning Assumptions that are cascaded to all Programme Managers who in turn produce their detailed plans for costing. Through a series of screenings, the Assumptions, Plans and Costings are scrutinised to ensure that they are both affordable and realistic.

The approach provides Program Managers with an opportunity to justify their resource requirements to senior management and for senior management to prioritise in deciding exactly where the limited funds available should be allocated. These screenings were, and will continue to be, conducted in the presence of the Financial Secretary to ensure transparency.

The estimated requirement for total defence-related expenditure for fiscal year 2002 was Le 91.108bn of which 28.7% related to salaries. However, the total allocation for FY 2002 was Le 61.2bn and this shortfall represented a significant challenge to senior management.

In Sierra Leone, as in many other African countries that either had experienced military takeovers or wish to prevent one, defense spending increasingly became a means of containing the military and its interests rather than a function of strategic and territorial defense needs. Sierra Leonean military expenditures and their relation to gross domestic product (GDP) are not always comparable over a period of years.

Nevertheless the figures suggest that the country's military expenditures tended to increase absolutely as a proportion of total government spending and as a percentage of GDP during the short-lived military regime and in the period beginning thereafter, although some of the increase may be accounted for by inflation and by an actual increase in the numbers of men in the military. A small air force and navy were instituted in that period, and the army grew from roughly 1,500 in the mid-1960s to a little more than 2,000 by the mid-1970s.

In the period from FY 1964 to FY 1967, immediately preceding the military takeover, military expenditures decreased from the equivalent of US$2.9 million to US$2.1 million (in constant dollars). In the same period military expenditures expressed as a percentage of GDP de- creased from 0.7 to 0.6 percent.

From FY 1968, the first full year of the military regime, to FY 1971 defense expenditures rose, reaching US$4.2 million in FY 1971 (0.9 percent of GDP). In FY 1972 the amount budgeted for the military decreased, but it rose again in FY 1974, and preliminary figures suggest fluctuations thereafter. In no case, however, throughout the decade did military expenditures constitute more than 7.0 percent of the current expenditures; and by FY 1976, despite an absolute increase, military expenditures came to only 3.7 percent of the total.

The bulk of the defense expenditure was devoted to personal emoluments. In FY 1974, for example, estimates under this subheading came to Lei. 9 million of a total of Le3.J million, and the absolute amount rose substantially in the next year. In late March 1974 riots broke out at Juma Barracks over demands for increased salaries to offset the effects of inflation. The disturbances were quickly brought under control by the arrest of several junior army officers involved in the protest. Soon afterward, however, the president announced salary increases throughout the civil service and the armed forces. Military salaries are well above the average for the entire country and a fraction higher than comparable positions in the civilian sector.

According to the World Bank, military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country).

Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons. This definition cannot be applied for all countries, however, since that would require much more detailed information than is available about what is included in military budgets and off-budget military expenditure items. (For example, military budgets might or might not cover civil defense, reserves and auxiliary forces, police and paramilitary forces, dual-purpose forces such as military and civilian police, military grants in kind, pensions for military personnel, and social security contributions paid by one part of government to another.)

NATO defines defense expenditure as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces or those of Allies. A major component of defense expenditure is payments on Armed Forces financed within the Ministry of Defense (MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land, Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint formations such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command etc. In view of the differences between the NATO and national definitions, the figures shown may diverge considerably from those which are quoted by national authorities or given in national budgets.

They might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry of Interior troops, border guards, national police forces, customs, gendarmerie, carabinierie, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure should be included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Also, expenditure on Other Forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than MoD should be included in defense expenditure.

Pension payments made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments should be included regardless of whether these payments are made from the budget of the MoD or other ministries. Expenditures for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations (paid by MoD or other ministries), the destruction of weapons, equipment and ammunition, and the costs associated with inspection and control of equipment destruction are included in defense expenditures.

Research and development (R&D) costs are to be included in defense expenditures. R&D costs should also include those for projects that do not successfully lead to production of equipment. Expenditure for the military component of mixed civilian-military activities is included, but only when this military component can be specifically accounted for or estimated. Financial assistance by one Allied country to another, specifically to support the defense effort of the recipient, should be included in the defense expenditure of the donor country and not in the defense expenditure of the receiving country. War damage payments and spending on civil defense are both excluded from the NATO definition of defense expenditure.