After all the histrionics and hysteria between the Government and the Auditor General over the submission of the public accounts for the 2023 financial year, the actual document inspires both deja vu and despair.
Year after year, Auditors General have submitted reports outlining variations of the examples outlined in the 2023 report.
In the judiciary, two cheques totalling $879,946 were disbursed to a contractor at the end of September 2023, but the contract in relation to the expenditure was dated December 19, 2023. In addition, a completion certificate was not seen for full payment for this project.
The judiciary also undertook the supply, delivery, installation and commissioning of core audiovisual hardware, wiring and programming for 69 courtrooms throughout the country. This is obviously a crucial element in speeding up the delivery of justice in T&T, which everyone, including Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, agrees is of extreme importance in addressing the crime scourge plaguing the country.
However, the Auditor General said a contract agreement for $34.4 million, including expenditure on rehabilitation of the Hall of Justice and magistrates’ courts, was not produced for audit and so completion of the work could not be verified.
Under the Office of the Prime Minister, Cabinet approvals and signed lease agreements were not seen for properties occupied by the Government Printery and National Archives. Despite the absence of signed lease agreements, rent was paid monthly in the amounts of $249,000 and $93,375 respectively, for the two properties. As a result, the terms and conditions of the lease arrangement could not be determined.
Under the Treasury Division of the Ministry of Finance, a total of 15 departments did not produce documents to support payment of public monies totalling $386.05 million for audit examination. This includes $231.03 million in expenses in connection with international financial institutions.
The proverbial man in the street is entitled to ask how a contractor can be paid if the contract that determines the payment has not been completed? And how difficult is it to produce documents to support the expenditure of public funds?
The examples cited above are but a few of the many showing a lack of accountability in the public sector outlined in the 2023 report. And similar examples can be found in all of the past Auditor General’s reports. This is not to say that some of the revelations in the most recent report are not shocking.
It is almost beyond belief that this country’s system of procurement was not robust enough to prevent the fraud involved in the payment of US$26,000 to an Indonesian company for the purchase of four laser analysers for use by scrap metal inspectors. Basic due diligence would have resulted in red flags before the payment was made.
It is clear the system of ensuring transparency and accountability in the spending of public funds has failed.
The current system involves accounting officers, mostly permanent secretaries or other high-ranking public servants, being questioned before Public Accounts Committees, following the publication of the Auditor General’s report.
The Government must consider both the carrot and the stick in seeking to improve the culture of accountability in the public service. It is imperative that some of the scandalous practices, such as making payments before contracts are signed, be outlawed.
It might also be helpful if divisions of the public service are scored, ranked and rewarded for their adherence to an agreed set of accountability criteria.