The1999 Constitution as amended in Section 85 (1) and (2) establishes the office of the Auditor-General for the Federation with powers to audit the public accounts of all offices and courts in the Federation. The equivalent provision for states is Section 125 (1) and (2) of the constitution. Constitutional provisions on the auditing of public accounts are limited to independence, tenure, remuneration, submission of audit report to the Public Accounts Committee of the legislature and general powers in relation to the audit of government statutory corporations, agencies and commissions...The Audit Act of 1956 was not reproduced in the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and by section 5 (1) of the Revised Edition (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) Decree 1990, the Act ceased to be part of Nigerian laws. Further, by the authority of the Revised Edition (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) Act No.65 of 2007, the Act was stated to have been superseded by the 1979 Constitution. However, no new audit law has been enacted at the federal level since then and audit reports at the federal level have consistently been prepared as if the superseded Act is still in force. The constitution did not go into the definition of processes and procedures, coverage, ambit and other details of the audit function. These processes need to be fleshed out by a new legislation to avoid a lacuna in the law.Audit practices at the federal and state levels are no longer in tandem with modern realities of best practices in the audit function. The audit function has moved beyond the traditional financial, compliance and regularity audits. Larger issues of transparency, accountability, value for money and performance measurement, sustainable environmental audit, information technology and forensic audits have been mainstreamed into the modern audit lexicon and practice. As usual, Nigeria lags behind and has a lot to learn from comparable countries even in sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria has also failed to even properly perform and follow up the recommendations of the traditional audit function.Auditing is part of the cycle and chain of public expenditure management which in Nigeria has been undergoing policy and legislative reforms in the last 10 years. The reforms include the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 which covers issues of budget formulation, medium term expenditure framework, budget execution and reporting, deficits, borrowing and debts management, public access to information and enforcement provisions. The Public Procurement Act 2007 provides for a competitive, accountable, transparent, value for money procurement process from the stages of planning, bid solicitation, review, evaluation, award of contracts, mobilisation fees, performance guarantees and project implementation. The missing link in these reforms is the auditing and evaluation function which is virtually the last part of the budgeting process. It is impossible for these public expenditure management reforms to succeed if a critical component of the chain (auditing) is very weak.Across the federation, audit reports are usually late and in arrears. Although, the constitution requires the Auditor General to send his reports to the PAC within 90 days of receiving the Accountant Generals financial statements, the law is silent on the timing for the submission of the Accountant Generals statements. The current audit function appears to be a frustrating exercise in report writing. The Auditor General produces a report which is sent to the PACs of the legislature. The PACs conduct their hearings, conduct investigations if necessary, conclude their deliberations and produce yet another report. What happens to the recommendations in the first and second reports' Available evidence shows that audit recommendations are treated with levity by Ministries, Departments and Agencies of government. There is hardly a follow-up on the recommendations. This sets the stage for the year after year recurrence of the same set of financial felonies and misdemanours by MDAs.Merely stating in the constitution that the Auditor-General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in the discharge of his functions is not enough to guarantee his independence. A situation where the office of the Auditor-General is poorly funded by appropriation and even lacks guarantee of full release of appropriated funds cannot support independence of mind and action. Just like the judiciary, the recurrent expenditure of the office of the Auditor-General should be a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation and all the funds appropriated for the office should be treated as a first line charge.The Auditor-General needs powers to surcharge the amount of any expenditure which has not been duly brought into the account or the amount of any loss or deficiency incurred on the person who incurred the loss for the treasury; revoke any surcharge with the approval of the Public Accounts Committee. Further powers include the powers to direct the withholding of the emoluments and allowances of persons who fail or refuse to reply to audit queries within 30 days and for as long as the persons fails to comply; unrestricted access to information necessary for proper discharge of his statutory obligations and carry out value-for-money audit. The office should also be in a position to require, at the pain of punishment, any person in the employment of an institution whose accounts are being audited to appear before it at a time and place mentioned in the request; to produce to it, all such records, books, vouchers and documents in the possession or under the control of such person. It is further recommended that in requiring persons to appear before him, the Auditor General should have power to examine such persons on oath in respect of any matter pertinent to any audit.Increased functions of a modern Auditor-General necessitate wider powers. When the AGF merely checks the financial statements against the payment vouchers, he needs only access to books of account and records. The demand for value-for-money and the wider duties anticipated in a new Audit Act requires more than documentary evidence. There may be the need for investigatory powers for the Office unencumbered by the powers of the Police and other agencies. The Auditor-General should have powers, on the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, to be obtained ex-parte, to enter premises for the purpose ofinspection, search and seizure of not only documents but also items of real evidence. The Auditor General also needs powers to follow, trace and recover, generally or in specie, misappropriated funds and properties of government and for that purpose to inspect and scrutinise private records and bank accounts where the funds may have been diverted.Nigerians are tired of stories of corruption. An empowered Auditor-Generals office with a proper mandate, funding and staffing would either have nipped these violations in the bud or would have made them public knowledge and followed up on them. Empirical evidence demonstrates no link between the work of the anti-corruption agencies and the Office of the Auditor-General. What is the purpose of indicting a public officer as having misappropriated or mismanaged millions of naira if nothing is done to recover such money' As punishment follows the offence, the lack of a clear follow-up system encourages impunity and deprecates the work of the Auditor-General.The extant audit regime is overdue for reforms. It is a sad fact that the Executive under the administration of former President Olusegun Obansanjo sent an Audit bill to the National Assembly which was duly passed. The former president however refused to assent to the bill thereby bringing us back to the status quo.Onyekpere, Lead Director, Centre for Social Justice, can be reached on censoj@gmail.com or 08127235995
Click here to read full news..
