Burundi
exchange rate subsidies and unpaid customs debts.14 Interpetrol actually received compensation of US$21 million, a substantially larger amount than what was lost due to exchange rates. The unwarranted payments were made as a result of dubious transactions that implicated the former governor of the Bank of Burundi and the minister of finance.15 The minister, Denise Sinankwa, fled abroad, while bank governor Isaac Bizimana was arrested in August 2007 under a warrant issued by the attorney general relating to the theft of more than BIF 23 billion.16
mercialisation of oil by any means, as long as the product was available. Finally, order was restored with the 25 June 2008 Decree 100/110. Although this order is unambiguous, much will depend on the law’s enforcement. If Burundi wants to fight corruption in this capacity it will succeed; otherwise the sector will remain as it is.
According to an audit report, conducted with World Bank support, the oil sector owes the Burundi government US$38 million, equivalent to 3.8 per cent of GDP.17 An audit report by Eura Audit International in February 2008 sets the amount Interpetrol owes to the state at BIF 32.3 billion (US$27 million).18
Eura Audit International, Audit Report on the Debts between the State of Burundi and the Oil Sector (Paris: Eura Audit International, 2008). Government of Burundi, Etude diagnostique sur la gouvernance et la corruption au Burundi (Bujumbura: Government of Burundi, 2008). M. Masabo, L’action citoyenne pour la promotion des droits de l’homme par la lutte contre la corruption (Bujumbura: ABUCO, 2007). Country Review of Legal and Practical Challenges to the Domestication of the Anticorruption Conventions in Burundi (Bujumbura: TI, 2006). Nathan Associates, Fighting Corruption and Restoring Accountability in Burundi (Arlington, VA: Nathan Associates, 2006). J. Nimubona, Revue synthétique et critique de publication sur les questions de gouvernance et de corruption au Burundi (Bujumbura: Observatoire de l’Action Gouvernementale, 2008). J. Nimubona and C. Sebudandi, ‘Le phénomène de la corruption au Burundi: Révolte silencieuse et résignation’, USAID International Alert, February 2008. World Bank, Burundi Governance Diagnostics (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008).
There is corruption in the Burundi oil sector for two fundamental reasons. First, it is monopolised by two large companies, Engen Petroleum and Interpetrol. Second, the legislation pertaining to the sector is unstable, going through periodic change with respect to the regulation of importation and the commercialisation of the product. Three presidential decrees have successively governed the sector since 1988, starting with Decree 100/160 of 30 September 1988, under which the sector appeared to be regulated well and functioning normally. Following this, however, the decree was modified on 7 November 1996 by Decree 100/072, which was signed while the country was under embargo by neighbouring countries. This formalised the disorganisation of the sector in the face of the embargo and allowed the importation and com-
Vénant Bacinoni (ABUCO [Consumers’ Association of Burundi])
Additional reading
14 Eura Audit International, Audit Report on the Debts between the State of Burundi and the Oil Sector (Paris: Eura Audit International, 2008). 15 Global Insight Same-day Analysis (US), 4 February 2008. 16 Sapa AFP (South Africa), 4 August 2007; AfricaNews.com (Netherlands), 6 August 2007; BBC News (UK), 4 August 2007. 17 Government of Burundi, ‘Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies, and Technical Memorandum of Understanding [to IMF]’, 24 June 2008. 18 Eura Audit International, 2008.
169