[ 2014-10-24 ]

5 ministries waste 246.5 million Ghana cedis in 3 years
Financial irregularities in five ministries
between 2009 and 2011 cost the nation GHC246.5
million, according to an abridged version of the
findings of the Auditor-General's Report published
by Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII), the anti
­corruption organisation.

These “irregularities” described in the report
include poor cash management practices,
non-collection of outstanding debts, procurement
and contract irregularities, payments not
supported byappropriate documentation, stores
irregularities, misappropriation of cash, payments
of unearned salaries, payroll irregularities, and
major breakdown of controls over tax
administration.

The report "Show Me the Money", reviewed the
Auditor General’s Report of the Ministry of
Finance. Ministry of Education, Ministry of
Health, Ministry of Youth and Sports and MInsitry
of Justice and Attorney General’s Department.

It shows the deep seated, systematic nature of
mismanagement in the country, and the failure of
authorities to act to stem or punish what
sometimes appears to be plain stealing, but has
been given the label of ‘‘financial
irregularities”.

The report calculated the total amount of
“financial irregularities” in the Ministry of
Finance to be GHC11.9 million, GHC80.7 million,
and GHC54.6 million in 2009, 2010 and 2011
respectively. At the Ministry of Education,
financial irregularities amounted to GHC717,029,
GHC2 million and GHC3.3 million within the same
period.

The recurring financial irregularities at the
Ministry of Youth and Sports were tax
irregularities, petty cash not accounted for, and
unpaid staff advances. These irregularities
amounted to GHC14,037 million , GHC1.2 million and
GHC278,733 million in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

At the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General's
Department, total irregularities uncovered
amounted to GHC48.469 in 2010, and GHC 16.3
million and US$65,929 in 2011. There were no
adverse audit findings in 2009.

According to GII's report, which was presented by
Mr. Albert Kan-Dapaah, the consultant for the
project, the objective of the report to ascertain
the extent to which audit findings and
recommendations have been implemented.

However, beyond verbal assurances from key
officials that action had been taken, the report's
authors could not be establish or verify whether
the audit findings had truly been acted upon. "It
is not the normal practice of the Auditor- General
to ascertain whether action has been taken on
their audit recommendations of the previous year.
The Auditor- General, therefore, does not have any
record on actions taken,” the report's authors
said.

"At the same time, the ministries were reluctant
to allow access to their books and records by the
public," they added.

Mr. Kan-Dapaah, who is a former chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, said in
his presentation that audit findings must be acted
upon, otherwise the whole audit assignment is
rendered useless. He also said the responsibility
to ensure that actions are taken and sanctions
applied as necessary is placed on the Audit Report
Implementation Committees (ARICs).

The creation of ARICs is mandated by section 30 of
the Audit Service Act 2000 (Act 584), which
provides that bodies and organisations which are
subject to audit by the Auditor-General must
establish an ARIC.

According to Mr. Kan-Dapaah, the ministries
studied generally did not attach particular
importance to the role of the ARICs between 2009
and 2011, although frantic efforts were being made
in the last year to establish the ARICs and ensure
their efficacy.

The report revealed that in all the three years
that were examined, the five ministries did not
comply with the statutory financial reporting
requirements demanded by the Financial
Administration Act, 2003, compelling the
Auditor-General to restrict himself to an audit of
transactions of the MDAs, as opposed to an audit
of their financial statements.

The report therefore called on government to take
steps to compel the MDAs to comply with this
requirements, as the current practice limits the
scope of the audit as is envisaged by the law.

Source - Starrfmonline

... go Back