This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from one of Transparency International’s national chapters. The Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union.
Query
Please provide a summary and examples from European/OECD countries of the main aspects related to criminal liability for ministers and immunity provisions for them.
Summary
This Helpdesk Answer explores legal frameworks for holding ministers liable for corruption, focusing on European and OECD countries. First, the paper examines how liability is attributed to ministers through different pathways (political, legal and criminal), and the defences available to them. Next, it analyses the scope and limitations of immunities granted to ministers, highlighting their potential to obstruct accountability and undermine public trust. Analysis of OECD member states’ constitutions demonstrates that immunities for ministers are much rarer than the ones granted to MPs.
Main points
- Ministerial liability may encompass political, legal, and criminal responsibility. While ministers often enjoy less immunity than heads of state or parliamentarians, special impeachment procedures can act as de facto immunities. This can complicate efforts to hold ministers to account.
- Frequent defences against corruption charges include lack of intent, insufficient evidence, and entrapment. Arguments based on superior orders or cabinet approval are rare and generally ineffective in corruption cases.
- Across the 38 OECD member states, only four provide for immunities for their ministers, while all 38 ensure MPs have some form of immunity.
- Ministerial immunities vary significantly across countries, ranging from absolute protections to conditional procedural safeguards. While intended to preserve democratic functions, they can hinder investigations and prosecutions, especially when not clearly regulated or transparently applied.
- International standards call for a balanced approach, ensuring immunities do not obstruct justice. The UNCAC and Venice Commission recommend clear procedures for lifting immunities and emphasise the importance of maintaining accountability to prevent impunity and reinforce public trust.
Authors
Guilherme France, [email protected]
Reviewers
Maria Constanza Castro, Matthew Jenkins and Milos Resimic
Date
20/11/2025
