The Coalition for Accountability and Integrity - AMAN held a discussion on the public budget Audit reports. The participants recommended the Ministry of Finance and Planning abide by the regulations on the public budget Audit reports and transparency principles. As the law stands, the MoFP should publish accurate and complete financial statements on a timely basis. They also called the members of the Legislative Council to shoulder their responsibility according to law. The Legislative Council stand to be the body in charge of holding the Ministry of Finance accountable for the Audit reports that have been put on ice for five years now.
The Ministry of Finance absented itself from the session. Nonetheless, the discussion took an added importance by the participation of an array of official institutions, including the Legislative Council, the State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau, the Anti-Corruption Commission, Ministry of Justice, and a constellation of CSOs representatives and experts. The participants, with one voice, highlighted the significance of Audit reports as a key oversight tool of the government activity. The legislative authority stands in need of such a tool to ensure the compliance of the executive authority with the permitted spending allocations for the realization of approved programs and policies related to the state spending and revenues incorporated in public budgets.
On his part, Moaid Afaneh, a researcher conducted a study on the Audit reports, shed the light on the fact that the latest final statement disclosed on the Ministry of Finance website throws back to the 2009 public budget. By the same token, the latest disclosed SAACB audited final statement report was for the fiscal year 2011. As the relevant laws stand, the Ministry should have developed and disclosed the Audit reports for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The SAACB also should have audited and published related reports for 2012, 2013, and 2014, and the preparations have should already been afoot to develop and publish the audited report for 2015.
Afaneh emphasized that there are three active actors at the final statement scene. First comes the Ministry of Finance, which should maintain the accounts and records according to the Law No. 7 of 1998 on Public Budgeting. “The rub lies in the fact that the Ministry cannot furnish the Audit reports for the fiscal years that do not fall into its scope of work due to the lack of information and absence of the people who were in charge during that time.” He added.
As for the SAACB, it carries the flame once it receives the final statement from the Ministry of Finance. It shoulders the responsibility for auditing the data therein, making the required comments and clarifications on the light the of the audit results according to the international auditing standards. The latter require the SAAB adheres to the professional code of conduct and plans and carries out the audit with eyes wide open to ensure that the furnished Audit reports are free of substantial legal, technical or procedural inaccuracies.
The Legislative Council, furthermore, does not fulfil its supervisory role due to the suspension state it has been dragged to. Here comes another problem, as the Ministry of Finance does not furnish the Audit reports to the Legislative Council. The latter performs neither its statutory role nor its duty to hold relevant stakeholders accountable for the public spending. This fact takes an added importance because the SAACB lacks the legal tools to oblige the stakeholders, including the MoFP to enforce the recommendations it puts forwarded in its audited reports. The Legislative Council stands to be the main body to hold other stakeholders accountable. Nonetheless, as long as it is put on back burner the accountability principle will remain unrealized.
Dr. Azmi Shuaibi, AMAN BoD Anti-Corruption consultant, defined the Audit reports as a formal detailed record of the financial amounts the government actually spends on the various spending items and all the revenues collected from the revenue resources often over an annum. The significance of such statements lies in the fact that they stand to be an oversight tool to enhance transparency, trigger accountability for public money management and conservation, and slam the door in the face of corruption.
The Participants unanimously agreed that there is a problem in the enforcement of the laws related to the public budget Audit reports. The Ministry of Finance does not publish the statement on time stipulated by the Basic Amended Law and other relevant regulations. Above and beyond, the public spending stands in need of the realization of the accountability principle due to the suspension of the Legislative Council since 2007.
On the other hand, the participants underlined the unfeasibility of the corrective actions taken in response to the recommendations of the SAACB reports on financial statements due to the delayed submission of such statements. For example, the final statement for 2011 was furnished after 37 months from the end of the fiscal year 2012. In other words, it lagged 25 months behind the submission deadline stipulated by the law. Similarly, the final statement for 2012 was received by the SAACB in September 2016. As for the latter statements, they have not been received up to the minute.
The study, which was discussed during the session, emphasized that the MoFP is working on addressing the challenges and problems faced it during the development of the previous final statement. The majority of such issues were technical. As the study stated, the Ministry in coordination with SAACB and with a technical support from the World Bank will make every endeavor to bridge the gap in the final statement as the last syllable of 2017 wears on.
At the eleventh hour, the participants stressed that the analysis of the SAACB final statement reports raises more comments in addition to what has already been emphasized. In fact, there are several legal, administrative, procedural, and technical issues that need to be addressed, including but not limited to technical errors in the Accounting Information System (Bisan), corrections to high-value discrepancies, incomplete banking and financial statement settlements and account and balance transfers, and inaccuracy and unfairness of financial data of several liability positions.
