There will be no audit for the time being into the emergency purchase of anti-drone weapons, after the purchase came under fire following a Pano report on drones and potentially misguided investments.
The Federal Audit Service has not officially given a reason for the decision but, according to De Morgen, the service does not feel sufficiently specialised in military procurement matters. Legally, it may reject requests “where the nature of the tasks and the workload they entail” prove unmanageable.
Drones were reported in various locations across the country last autumn, including military bases, and Brussels Airport had to be closed on several occasions.
Following last year’s Pano report on the issue, Defence minister Theo Francken of N-VA promised an independent inquiry into possible irregularities surrounding the €50 million emergency purchase. He said there would be “complete transparency”. A criminal investigation is also under way at the Brussels public prosecutor’s office.
What this means for new defence procurements remains unclear. Coalition partner Vooruit had said that clarity must first be established regarding the emergency purchase before any new investments can be made.
Dual investigation
In an initial response, the party says it wants more clarity on the audit service’s decision, “but we continue to believe that a review is necessary”.
Francken has asked the FIA to investigate two matters: the five contracts for anti-drone capabilities and the procurement of anti-drone systems for Ukraine, says Jens Franssen, defence expert at VRT NWS.
We continue to believe that a review is necessary
In a letter to the Ministry of Defence, the FIA states that it cannot carry out an investigation, partly because legal proceedings are ongoing, and it does not wish to interfere with those proceedings.
Fact-finding inquiry
Franssen: “Sources close to Francken, however, say that the minister has not yet been summoned by an investigating judge and that, in their view, there is therefore no real judicial investigation but merely a preliminary fact-finding inquiry.”
According to sources close to the case, political considerations are not a factor. “This is a technical and legal demarcation between government departments that do not wish to get in each other’s way,” says Franssen. “For Francken, this is rather inconvenient, as it makes it difficult to ‘clear his name’ as quickly as possible.”
