Editorial

That roads - right from the planning (sic) stage to completion (sic) - leave a lot to be desired is a widely-held opinion. Now that has been confirmed by the National Audit Office which, in a stinging report tabled in parliament last week, listed a string of shortcomings that raise a number of serious questions all meriting official reply.

Although the buck will always stop on the desk of the minister responsible for roads, the report conclusions paint a picture of a Roads Directorate that has a system, for want of a better term, that is more bumpy than our roads themselves.

"These shortcomings emerged due to inadequate management structures and lack of human resources, both in quality and in the number of the organisations involved in public procurement," the audit office said. It noted that the directorate "lacked a coherent project planning approach and full planning philosophy", adding that this deficiency led to weak execution during tender adjudication and poor project management performance and inconveniences to end-users. In addition, the Roads Directorate lacks adequate internal control systems both with regard to financial as well as technical matters.

What happens now? Sooner or later the report is likely to be discussed by the House public accounts committee. No doubt, the minister responsible for roads and the top people at the Roads Directorate will be summoned. Searching and uncomfortable questions will be asked and, judging by past experience, the session/s will resemble a live show of Yes Minister with civil servants churning out long-winded "explanations" but very little answers, if any, and, more so, solutions.

How long can this sort of charade go on? Why is the tax-payer asked to play his/her role in the country's progress but then well-paid top civil servants are allowed to get away with so much mismanagement, in the wide sense of the word, that is costing the country so dearly?

Just to give an idea of what such mismanagement can consist of suffice it to repeat what the NAO raised in its report when discussing financial control: "Invoices amounting to over Lm700,000 were not found. Out of 120 payment vouchers, no invoices were found in respect of 23 payment vouchers. Of the invoices that were found, covering the remaining 97 payment vouchers, there was no evidence in 14 cases that the invoices were checked by the quantity surveyor, project manager and chief engineer".

In the circumstances, the tax-payer is justified in wondering whether this is the exception or the rule within the civil service. The tax-payer is likewise right in wondering whether the proposed Public Service Act will result in a better managed and more accountable civil service or whether the mandarins will still remain evergreen. After all this is not the first time that the Auditor General has raised such disturbing situations.

To go back to the report on the shortcomings prevailing at the Roads Directorate, will the ministry of roads be willing to order an internal inquiry in order to put things right as soon as possible? This can then be followed by a public inquiry, the main aim of which would be to apportion blame but, more importantly, to convey the message that the way ahead for the civil service is indeed based on transparency and accountability.