Defence ministry review finds gaps in Datasel contract records

Documenting the selection and background checks of contractors involved in Datasel-related deals was inadequate, Estonia’s Defence Ministry Secretary General Kristjan Mäe said, according to ERR. He said the deals’ legality could be assessed and the review found no intentional concealment or deletion of documents.

Ten people from the ministry and the State Defence Investment Centre, known by its Estonian abbreviation RKIK, contributed to the working group’s report. They examined 428 gigabytes of records from document management systems, classified information registers, email accounts and other official information systems.

The review aimed to gather correspondence, meeting minutes, contracts, emails and reports concerning companies involved in assisting Ukraine, and to assess whether the documents and decisions complied with the rules in force. It was not intended to determine possible offences or individual responsibility, which Mäe said were matters for investigative authorities.

Mäe said there were few suppliers able to provide suitable ammunition to Ukraine within a short timeframe, and Estonia had not worked with them before. This increased the risks, he said, but not enough to justify abandoning the contracts. He added that the deals funded by the European Peace Facility were made when Ukraine’s armed forces urgently needed artillery and other ammunition and EU member states were expected to respond quickly.

According to the facility’s final report, RKIK delivered 93,268 units of ammunition to Ukraine’s armed forces using its funds, with a total value of nearly 145 million euros.

Mäe said the case had exposed shortcomings that needed to be addressed. Contractor selection and background checks should have been more thorough and systematically documented, he said. Relevant records were not always available or linked to specific contracts and decisions. RKIK also lacked the legal basis and access to databases needed to conduct independent background checks.

The report also found that exceptional procurement needs a stronger framework for managing risks, higher-risk deals require tighter controls, and meeting minutes did not always record discussions or explain decisions. Mäe said Estonia’s defence institutions had no established practice for making deals under such market conditions and time pressure, so decision-making processes developed as the work proceeded.

The working group sought to establish the roles of individuals involved in the contracts, but could not fully reconstruct all communications. Mäe said the ministry would cooperate with investigative authorities as needed. He said the full report could not be made public because of legal restrictions and commercial confidentiality, but committee members could review the complete report and attached contracts on request.