In Defence of the Director of Audit

In all the discussions taking place inclusion into the annual estimates.
about the need for the
constitutionally appointed Director
of Audit (DOA) to audit recipients
of government money and
government owned or controlled
corporations such as the
International Airport Development
Company (IADC), suggestions
have been made that the Director
of Audit is failing to fulfill her
obligations. I wish to present
reasons why this office needs to be
defended, under the circumstances.
How Independent is
the Director of
Audits Office?
The constitution explains at sub-
section 1 of section 82, that the
DOA is appointed by the
Governor-General, acting in
accordance with the advice of
the Public Service Commission.
Note, however, that in sub-section
3 it shows this appointment is only
after consultation with the Prime
Minister. Before tendering advice
for the purposes of subsection (1)
or subsection (2) of this section,
the Public Service Commission
shall consult with the Prime
Minister. The extent to which the
need to consult with the Prime
Minister first before appointing the
Page 4 THE NEWS Friday June 2, 2017
It says,
(2) The Director of Audit shall,
not later than six months before the
beginning of each financial year,
submit to the committee in respect
of the financial year estimates of
the sums of money that will be
required to be provided by the
Legislature to defray the
expenses of the Audit Office in
that financial year.
(3) The Committee shall without
delay review estimates submitted
pursuant to subsection (2) and, on
the completion of the review, the
chairman of the Committee shall
transmit the estimates to the
Minister for inclusion in the
annual estimates.
Sub-section 1 shows that the
committee is a committee
appointed by the House of
Assembly for the purposes of this
section.
Clearly, if the DOA needs more
staff or needs funds to outsource
human resources to conduct some
of its operations, it will have to
have funds approved by the
estimates in parliament.
Furthermore, if monies are not
DOA then indicates that her
disbursed in time or if not as much
by Anesia O. Baptiste
Political Leader, Democratic
Republican Party
the wide scope of powers and
responsibilities afforded her under
the Constitution of SVG and the
Audit Act, 2005, in particular.
Under General Issues, Programme
of Work at paragraph 1.11, the
DOA says, All the audit activities
planned for the years 2009 and
2010 were not completed due to
inadequate human and financial
resources. At paragraph 1.14 the
offices mandate had been
At the end of her list of serious matters the
DOA concludes: Because of the
significance of the matters described above,
and comments mentioned otherwise in this
report, I am of the opinion that the financial
statements presented for audit did not in
all material respects fairly represent the
financial position of the Government of
St. Vincent and the Grenadines as at 31st
December 2009 and 31st December 2010.
This is telling. Not only does the DOAs
office have to contend with lack of adequate
resources to do its job, it also has to contend
with problems related to Accounting
Officers (of ministries and departments)
non-compliance with several systems and
procedures required for accountability.
advances totalled her offices work. She said, at
$22,522,831.62 and paragraph 1.18 under Public
$22,224,905.49 Accounts Committee on page 5
respectively. of the report, The role of the

is disbursed despite what is

DOA, may affect the independence
of this office is left up to the
imagination. Can there be partisan
political interference? Maybe.
Despite this reality, sub-section 7
of section 75 affirms what is
supposed to be the independence
of the DOA in carrying out his or
her functions. It says, In the
exercise of his functions under
subsections (2),(3),(4) and(5) of
this section, the Director of Audit
shall not be subject to the
direction or control of any other
person or authority. This is the
ideal claim. However, can the DOA
truly be independent if the funding
of his/her offices operations
depends on estimates approved by
parliament?
Who Funds DOAs Human
Operation of Audit
Resources,
Office? Financial and Other
Section 27 of the Audit Act, 2005 Challenges
is instructive here. It provides for a
process similar to the manner in
which government Ministries are
funded to carry out their operations.
In brief, the DOA prepares
estimates, submits them to a
committee appointed by parliament
to address Estimates for
operating Audit Office, that
committee approves the estimates
and its chairman submits them to
the Minister of Finance for
extended to include the audit of
approved on paper (as is sometimes
Statutory Bodies and Government
the case), the DOA and his/her
controlled companies. Then she
office will not be able to function
hastened to say that, Due to the
in the manner the Constitution and
lack of adequately trained and
the Audit Act permits him/her to
qualified personnel on staff
do. Additionally, every public
her office was unable to audit
servant knows that it is not always
and had to resort to private sector
that your advance proposals for a
accounting firms to audit these
certain budget for the year in
bodies on its behalf. And even in
question, will be met with approval
that case, only three (3) statutory
by the finance leaders. Sometimes
bodies were audited then.
you get what you ask for and
sometimes you do not. It seems to
Now, remember that the DOA
me that this, too, would be the case
audits financial statements that are
of the DOA for the Audits office.
prepared and presented to her by
However, you do not have to take
the Accountant General, the
my word for it; just consider the
Governments Chief Accounting
words of the DOA in her last public
Officer. Of key note is the fact that
annual audit report for the years
in the DOAs remarks in her Audit
ending 2009 and 2010.
Certificate signed under her hand
27th January, 2014 and appearing
in the early pages of the above
mentioned report, she indicates that
audit examinations carried out
have revealedmatters of
particular concern for the years
2009 and 2010. The DOA then
In presenting her independent lists the matters, which time does
opinion and findings for the audit not permit me to detail here. Here
of government accounts for the is one:
years ending 2009 and 2010, the
1. 1. Large amounts
DOA makes some telling
of advances made by the
observations regarding general
Accounting Division
issues which affect her work for
remain outstanding for
those years in question. This report
several years. The DOA
was submitted in early 2014. If
said, As at 31st December
these circumstances still persist, it
2009 and 31st December,
is evident the DOAs hands are
2010 outstanding
severely tied in the performance of
When public officers do not
account for monies advanced to
them for government purposes, say
on government related trips, then
we have no knowledge of whether
they spent the money correctly or
not, or if the monies were spent on
activities that constitute
misbehaviour in public office with
taxpayers money, for example.
Millions is outstanding according
to the DOA.
At the end of her list of serious
matters the DOA concludes:
Because of the significance of the
matters described above, and
comments mentioned otherwise in
this report, I am of the opinion
that the financial statements
presented for audit did not in all
material respects fairly represent
the financial position of the
Government of St. Vincent and
the Grenadines as at 31 st
December 2009 and 31 st
December 2010. This is telling.
Not only does the DOAs office
have to contend with lack of
adequate resources to do its job, it
also has to contend with problems
related to Accounting Officers (of
ministries and departments) non-
compliance with several systems
and procedures required for
accountability. I must also add that
the DOA, after outlining the role of
the Public Accounts Committee,
complained about its lack of
functioning and how this affects
Public Accounts Committee is
critical to the Governments
accountability cycle. Therefore
the non-functioning of the
Committee could result in the
weakening of Parliamentary
control and is a source of
frustration of the audit exercise
as Permanent Secretaries and
Heads of Departments are not
called to account for their
stewardship.
From my reading of the report and
other facts, I conclude that the DOA
and her office must be defended
against any attempt to demand of
this office what it is simply unable
to do, under the circumstances. If
we are serious about accountability
from the constitutionally
established DOA position, we must
truly address the issue of its
independence; adequate financing
of the operations of the Audit office,
ensure compliance of accounting
officers and the proper functioning
of the Public Accounts Committee
to name a few issues. Until then it
seems to me we will always be in
serious arrears with Audit reports,
always lacking in the auditing of
Statutory Bodies, Recipient of
government money, Government
owned or controlled corporations
and capital projects. And ultimately
we will face lack of and limited
quality accountability of
government to the taxpayers for
the use of public funds.