Amend public finance management legislation.

By The NewsDay | Jul. 17, 2015 | 4 Min read

PUBLIC debate continues to intensify on the latest damning findings by the Auditor General on how public resources have been misused.

Such debate is most welcome given that this is a matter of huge public interest. However, my main worry is that there are no indications that the relevant authorities are putting in place any serious measures to arrest the rot.

Failure to take immediate action means the Auditor General will certainly make the same findings and recommendations when she releases the 2015 Audit Report by June next year.

Good practice is that when the Auditor General makes recommendations these must be taken on board in the formulation of the next annual budget.

The process of formulating the 2016 National Budget has already started and I am not sure anyone is paying any particular attention to the Auditor General’s findings and recommendations.

It is high time therefore that the Auditor General was given more teeth through an Act of Parliament if her recommendations are to be taken seriously.

Among the functions of the Auditor General as provided for under section 309 of the Constitution is to order the taking of measures to rectify any defects in the management and safeguarding of public funds and public property. Public officers are required by the same constitutional provision to comply with orders given to them by the Auditor General.

This is a very good constitutional provision aimed at empowering the Auditor General to enforce implementation of her recommendations. The Constitution however does not specify what action the Auditor General can take if public officials do not comply with her orders.

Keep Reading

Such measures must be specified in the Audit Office Act (Chapter 22:18) which however is completely silent on that. The current Audit Office Act does not even mention the powers of the Auditor General highlighted above.

There is therefore urgent need for the Audit Office Act to be aligned with the Constitution if the Auditor General is to be sufficiently empowered to carry out her duties and ensure prudent management of public resources.

The Auditor General has so far proved that her office is doing its job without fear or favour. Section 311 of the Constitution says in the exercise of his or her functions, the Auditor General is independent and subject only to the law. I do not think anyone is violating this constitutional provision.

However, the appointment of the Auditor General as provided for in the Audit Office Act must be aligned with the Constitution. Section 310 (1) of the Constitution requires the Auditor General to be appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament. The Audit Office Act however says the Auditor General is appointed by the President after consultation with the Public Service Commission.

The Constitution has gone further to require the removal of the Auditor General from office to be approved by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

The idea behind parliamentary concurrence is to engender the independence of this important office.

Both the Constitution and the Audit Office Act provide for an Audit Office Commission to oversee the operations of the Auditor General’s office, including the appointment of staff and administering the funds of the Office.

The Audit Office Act does not provide for parliamentary involvement in the appointment of members of the Audit Office Commission.

The powers for appointment are largely reposed in the President and the Minister of Finance.

This must be addressed in the amendment of the Audit office Act in order to strengthen the independence of the Auditor General as provided for under section 311 of the Constitution.

Section 30 of the Audit Office Act is a bit problematic. The section says the Minister of Finance may, in writing, give the Audit Office Commission “such general directions relating to the policy the Commission is to observe in the exercise of its functions as the Minister considers to be necessary in the national interest”. The Commission is required to take all necessary steps to comply with any direction given by the Minister.

While the same provision goes on to say the directions given by the Minister must not be construed as undue influence on the work of the Auditor General, the provision is tantamount to that.

Such provisions are open to abuse and should not form part of any good law. If the Constitution says in the exercise of his or her functions the Auditor General is independent and subject only to the law, the enabling legislation must fully comply with such a provision.

Members of Parliament must insist that the appointment of members of the Audit Office Commission is approved by Parliament and that they set their own policies without interference from anyone.

The Audit Office Act must therefore be aligned with the Constitution for the Auditor General to become truly independent and carry out her constitutional mandate more effectively.

A truly independent Auditor General is one that is able to compel public officers to comply with orders given by her office. Penalties must be specified in the Audit Office Act for non-compliance with orders given by the Auditor General.

 John Makamure is the Executive Director of the Southern African Parliamentary Support Trust. Feedback: [email protected]