Individual Corruption

According to Freedom House 2011, the citizens of Burkina Faso have ambivalent attitudes towards the judicial system. A majority considers that justice is unequal and that treatment rests on the social position of the prosecuted. Judges are also considered as corrupt, although, the report also notes that confidence in the judiciary is present. Moreover, cases are often delayed before they are brought to court and the implementation of judicial decisions is uncertain and can be ignored with impunity. In addition, the report notes that judicial proceedings are very expensive and victims of corruption often prefer not to seek redress.

According to the US Department of State 2010, NGOs report that the judiciary in Burkina Faso is corrupt, inefficient and subject to executive interference. Constitutionally, the head of the state is also the president of the Superior Council of the Magistrates, and the president has used his extensive appointment powers to influence the judiciary. In addition, the report identifies the main weaknesses of the judiciary to be the frequent removal of judges, corrupt magistrates, outdated legal codes, an insufficient number of courts and high legal costs. According to the same report, despite the existence of an independent judiciary for civil matters, citizens sometimes seek to settle disputes through the Ombudsman. However, court orders are not efficiently enforced when cases involve national security, influential persons or government officials. Furthermore, the Heritage Foundation 2010 also describes the judiciary in Burkina Faso as weak, and villagers often use customary or traditional courts.

Business Corruption

According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, companies identify a lack of judicial independence in Burkina Faso as constituting a competitive disadvantage. In 2006, Burkina Faso introduced specialised commercial chambers in the general courts and lowered enforcement costs by cutting the related registration tax from 4% to 2% of the judgement amount. Nonetheless, the US Department of State 2011 assesses the fees, the number of required procedures and the amount of time needed to resolve disputes as critically high.

Political Corruption

A series of corruption scandals in 2004-2005 raised expectations that senior officials would be prosecuted. However, according to Transparency International 2006, the court only handed down a very limited number of verdicts and dismissed or replaced some officials involved in the scandals. The steepest penalties were imposed on two mayors from the ruling party that, according to Transparency International 2006, could be interpreted as a settling of scores within the party, given that other mayors under suspicion were not charged with corruption.

According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, despite the institutional separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches guaranteed by the constitution, the judiciary is only formally independent, and is, in practice, dominated and politicised by the executive branch. In general, the judiciary suffers from political interference, and the inefficient judicial system fuels rampant corruption. The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 further reports that efficient court proceedings only happen when critics of the government are put on trial. On the other hand, the judiciary often turns a blind eye when powerful individuals are concerned. Nonetheless, the US Department of State 2010 reports that government interference in the judicial system in Burkina Faso occurs less frequently than in most countries in Africa, and judgements from foreign courts are accepted and enforced by local courts.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- Enforcing a commercial contract requires a company to go through 37 procedures that take 446 days to complete and costs 81.7% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business leaders give the independence of the judiciary from influences of members of government, citizens or companies a score of 2.6 on a 7-point scale (1 being as 'heavily influenced' and 7 as 'entirely independent').

- Business leaders give the efficiency of the legal system for private companies to settle disputes and challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.7 and 3.2 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'inefficient and subject to manipulation' and 7 'efficient and follows a clear, neutral process').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- Nearly 39% of companies surveyed believe that the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Burkina Faso 2008:
- 37%, 13% and 10% of respondents in this household survey considered some, most, or all of the judges and magistrates to be corrupt, respectively.

REC-LAC: Rapport 2006 (in French):
- Citizens identify the judiciary as the fourth most corrupt institution.