It is doubtful whether the National Audit Office has ever been as busy as it is at present. In a span of about a year, it has received no fewer than 14 requests for investigations, twice the early average. Since any capricious request is bound to reflect badly on whoever makes it, it is reasonable to conclude that all of the requests made are grounded in strong suspicion of irregularity or impropriety.

Such a sharp rise in the number of requests may well indicate that there is something seriously wrong in the way the administration is going about its work. Even though it is best to wait for the outcome of the investigations before passing final judgement, it is hard not to observe a sheer lack of accountability and transparency in important government business.

There are other worrying aspects in the work of the administration that ought to receive greater attention than at present. As the Finance Minister prepares topresent the government’s financial estimates for 2016, much – if not most – of the attention is focused on the benefits the government will be distributing.

However, considering the growing needs of the country, it is equally important to see that the money allocated in the Budget is well spent. The mission of the National Audit Office is precisely “to help promote accountability, propriety and best practices in government operations”.

The office says it aims at bringing about a healthy financial administration of public funds “mainly through encouraging effective utilisation of resources that will generate increased income and/or attained by reduced costs, also ensuring accurate and reliable reporting of government revenue and expenditure, assets and liabilities. NAO also determines whether revenue is generated and expenditure is incurred as approved by Parliament.”

This is quite a tall order, requiring not just skills on the part of the auditing staff but an adequate workforce. Insofar as accountability, propriety and best practices are concerned, there areserious shortcomings at practically all levels of administration.

At the top level, the Prime Minister often tries to wriggle out of moves that fall short of best practices by saying that he or his government could have done things differently. This is totally unacceptable as it suggests rashness, bad planning or, at worst, disregard of norms in the negotiation of agreements or deals, such as that over the Café Premier bailout or, even more glaring, the Gaffarena property.

Another most disquieting ‘deal’ is that over a State guarantee for a loan to a private consortium that is building a gas-fired power station, given at a time when letters of comfort and bank guarantees have been on the increase over the past years.

The Audit Office has yet to express its opinion over this.

At the purely administrative level of the public service, there are so many breaches of accountability, propriety and best practices that it is difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that there is an acute lack of administrative discipline across the board.

As regards control issues, for example, the Audit Office gives a whole range of shortcomings. These include lack of adherence to policies, weak tendering provisions, weak internal control structures and lack of proper audit trail, inaccurate figures reported as revenue in arrears as well as risk of substantial amounts becoming statute barred, lack of proper inventory management and inadequate controls in the payroll process.

Equally amazing are cases of sheer indifference and inattention to duty shown in compliance issues.

When will serious attention be given to such gross mismanagement?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.