Govt Ministries, agencies show little respect for AG office

Oct 15, 2016 News

…only 15 percent of recommendations implemented- Report

By Abena Rockcliffe- Campbell

Auditor General, Deodat Sharma, has expressed concern over the nonchalant treatment of the recommendations he makes yearly to improve the financial landscape of Guyana.

Auditor General, Deodat Sharma

Recently, Sharma presented his 2015 Audit Report to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Barton Scotland. Then on Thursday, the report was laid in the House.
Sharma bemoaned the fact that most of his recommendations over the years have been ignored. Specifically, Sharma said that only a small percentage of that which was recommended in 2014 was fully implemented.
He said, “Each year, my office issues recommendations to Ministries, Departments and Regions that are designed at improving systems and practices at these entities and improving the government’s governance and accountability mechanisms.”
Sharma said that 379 recommendations were made in his 2014 Audit Report. He said that he and his team reviewed each recommendation to determine what action, if any, was taken by the respective Accounting Officers.
To his disappointment, Sharma said, at the time of reporting, 115 recommendations which represent 29 percent of his overall recommendations were partially implemented, while 223 representing 56 percent were not implemented. Therefore, only 15 percent of the recommendations were recommended.
Sharma said, “Overall, I am concerned with the lack of action towards the implementation of these recommendations; since, 56 percent of the recommendations have not yet been implemented.”
In addition, Sharma said that in many instances, recommendations are repeated each year without appropriate action and as a result, weaknesses and issues that impacted negatively on
Government’s governance and accountability mechanisms continue to occur.
“Once again, I encourage the Government, through the Ministry of Finance, the Accountant General’s Department and the respective Head of Budget Agency to take appropriate actions and put measures in place to address the recommendations made in my prior report and this year as well,” said Sharma.
Also, Sharma said that of the 397 recommendations made in his 2014 Report, 344 were in relation to generalised areas, whilst the difference of 53 was in respect to overpayments on construction works and related issues.
The Auditor said that at the time of reporting in September 2016, there were 56 or approximately
14 percent of the 397 recommendations that were in relation to generalised areas and overpayments on construction work and related issues were cleared.
He said, “My Report for 2015 has 442 recommendations, of which, 62 or approximately fourteen percent were in relation to overpayments on construction works and related issues. Of the 62
Recommendations, 31 or approximately fifty percent were in relation to contracts that were awarded and or completed in 2015, with overpayments valued $36.197M.”
Sharma said that the difference of 31 or approximately 50 percent of these recommendations were in relation to contracts that were awarded and/or completed up to 2014, with overpayments amounting to $376.995M.
In addition, Sharma said that of the 442 recommendations contained in the 2015 Report, 388 or approximately 94 percent were in relation to generalised areas. Of these 388 recommendations, 191 or approximately 49 percent related to weak or non-existent internal controls, and breaches of legislation, including the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and Stores Regulations.
Sharma said, “The Audit Office continue to view the lack of action towards the implementation of prior recommendations with serious concerns and suggest stringent action be taken to address these findings, especially those related to overpayments on construction works, lack of/weak internal controls, including poor record keeping and breaches of relevant Legislations.”

1 thoughts on “Govt Ministries, agencies show little respect for AG office”

19CAGriffith48 October 15, 2016 at 7:01 pm

The Auditor ought to know his recommendations are either accepted in full or part or rejected by the Auditee / Minister .

Should a recommended audit finding exposes a ‘financial irregularity’ post audit, then the Auditee / Minister is responsible for not accepting generally agreed audit principles.

Finally, as auditor, is it not his job to follow up with the Auditee/Minister for a formal response to his staff report that bears his signature ?