The Auditor-General, Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, last Friday, 09 September 2022, in a closed-door meeting between the Management of the Audit Service and the Coalition of Civil Society Organisations (CCSOs) gave an account of his stewardship, including how his outfit has raked in billions from disallowed expenditure to the State.
The Auditor-General has recovered a total of GH¢2,210,269,588.99 from disallowed expenditure to the State.
The recovery was made upon the recommendations in the various Auditor-General’s reports to Parliament and Management Letters issued to the Auditees.
This was disclosed by the Auditor-General, Mr. Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, in a closed-door meeting between the Management of the Audit Service and the Coalition of Civil Society Organisations on Friday 09 September 2022.
According to the Auditor-General, he set up a Taskforce in May 2022 to follow-up on all outstanding disallowed expenditure from the various Auditor-General’s Reports and Management Letters from 2017 to 2020. He said that he mandated the Taskforce to go through the Auditor-General’s reports and ensure that all expenditures that were made contrary to law and disallowed are recovered.
The Auditor-General further informed the leaders of the Coalition that it is not the case that the disallowance and surcharge powers are not being exercised, as the disallowance of expenditure made contrary to law has led to the recovery of over GH¢2.2 billion to the State. He also briefed them on other steps he has taken to safeguard the public purse including the opening of the ‘Auditor-General’s Recoveries Account’ (with account number 1018331470015) to track all audit recoveries in real time. He indicated that the account which was opened barely two months ago with the Bank of Ghana has been used to recover a total of GH¢908,653.55 as at 07 September, 2022.
The Auditor-General stated that disallowance is quite different from Surcharge. Disallowance of expenditure normally leads to the Auditor-General recommending recovery from individuals, public officers and institutions who commit infractions. An example is found under paragraph 5 of the Special Audit Report of the Auditor-General on Disallowance and Surcharge as at 30 November 2018, and issued on 19 December 2018, in which the Service recovered Gh¢67,315,066.126 from public officers, individuals and institutions who committed financial infractions in the course of performing their duties. It is through this same process of disallowing expenditure contrary to law that the Service has recovered the over 2.2 billion cedis within the period stated.
The Auditor-General explained that Surcharge is a matter that often end up in court and took the leadership of the CSOs through the Surcharge process. He indicated that any audit infraction that has the potential of surcharge is flagged and subjected to a thorough forensic examination to gather evidence that may be admissible by the courts.
Thereafter, a notice of intention to surcharge is issued to the affected person and the person is given 14 days to respond. If after the expiration of the 14 days, the person is unable to respond satisfactorily, a surcharge certificate is issued, and the person is again given 60 days to challenge the certificate. After the expiration of the 60 days, the case is then forwarded to the Attorney General for prosecution. If within the periods, the affected person is able to provide sufficient, appropriate and satisfactory evidence to the Auditor-General, the intention to surcharge and the surcharge certificate, as the case may be, becomes irrelevant for purposes of further lawsuit. Therefore, it is not a matter of the number of certificates issued, but what ends up in court after the affected person is unable to challenge the certificate.
The Auditor-General informed the CSOs that available evidence from the Legal Unit of the Service indicates that, fourteen surcharge cases ended up in court during his predecessor’s time – and in all those cases, the Service lost resulting in the Service paying costs. Mr. Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, indicated that after taking over the administration of the Audit Service, he found out from the lawyers why all the cases were lost in court even though the Constitution has given the Auditor-General the power to do so. He immediately organised a training programme for his staff dubbed ‘Enhanced Audit Methodologies’ and invited an Attorney from the Attorney General’s Department to take his staff through the gathering of evidence that are admissible by the courts.
It is during the training that it emerged the evidence gathered by the Service in accordance with the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs) is based on the opinion of the Auditor and will not be admissible in the courts.
He intimated that evidence admissible by the courts go beyond audit opinion. Surcharge requires a rigorous process of forensic examination to be able to gather the evidence admissible by the Courts.
The Auditor-General hammered on the need to subject potential surcharge infractions to further forensic examinations and, that according to him, takes a lot of time to conclude. He was pleased to indicate that he has issued one Surcharge Certificate and that took more than a year to gather the relevant evidence, including the accused written statement to the police and police reports. The affected person could not challenge the surcharge and the case has since been forwarded to the Attorney General for further action.
He quoted a portion of the judgement of Her Ladyship Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe (Mrs.) in the Kroll Associates U.K. Limited and Yaw Osafo Maafo & Another (Consolidated) Vrs. The Auditor-General as follows: “Clearly, both appeals relate to the surcharge and/or disallowance issued on the basis of no work having been done by Kroll Associates. It is clear then, that had the Respondent (Auditor-General) not been hasty and had the Respondent’s office taken up the offer to inspect the documents which would be made available for inspection, the whole issue of whether or not work had been done would have been resolved without this convoluted and tortuous legal battle”. Surcharging involves a meticulous process to gather sufficient, appropriate, and relevant evidence.
Article 187(5) of the 1992 Constitution requires the Auditor-General to bring to the attention of Parliament any irregularities in the accounts audited and to any other matter which in his opinion ought to be brought to the notice of Parliament.
It is informative for the general public to note that, not all irregularities identified by the Auditor-General in his reports are matters requiring disallowance and/or surcharge. Many of these irregularities involve break down of internal controls and budgetary indiscipline which Management of the affected institutions are recommended to fix.
Going forward, and for better understanding, the Management of the Audit Service hinted that the Auditor-General’s reports may separate administrative irregularities from that relating to misappropriations.
Assets Declaration
On Assets Declaration, the Auditor-General informed the Coalition on his role by referring to Articles 286 and 287 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. Article 286 imposes obligation on persons who hold public office to submit to the Auditor-General a written declaration of all property or assets owned by, or liabilities owed by, the person whether directly or indirectly. Clause 2 of Article 286 states that “failure to declare or knowingly making false declaration shall be a contravention of this Constitution and shall be dealt with in accordance with Article 287 of this Constitution”. Article 287 states that “An allegation that a public officer has contravened or has not complied with a provision of this chapter shall be made to the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice and, in the case of the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice, to the Chief Justice who shall, unless the person concerned makes a written admission of the contravention or non-compliance, cause the matter to be investigated. The Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice or the Chief Justice as the case may be, may take such action as he considers appropriate in respect of the results of the investigation or the admission”.
Further, clause 3 of Article 286 states that the declaration made under clause (1) of this Article shall, on demand, be produced in evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction; or before a commission of inquiry appointed under Article 278 of this Constitution; or before an investigator appointed by the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice.
The Auditor-General therefore maintained that, based on his understanding of Articles 286 and 287 of the Constitution, he is discharging his constitutional mandate by receiving and taking custody of the submitted assets declaration forms.
COVID-19 Funds
The Auditor-General, Mr. Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, informed the leadership of the Coalition that, he has commissioned a special audit of Covid-19 funds nationwide, and stated that the special audit report will be submitted to Parliament, and published as soon as the audit is completed.
PAC Support
The Auditor-General took the opportunity to commend the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament for its role in enforcing the recommendations made in his reports. He said that the work of the PAC has significantly contributed to the recovery of the disallowed expenditure of GH¢2,210,269,588.99 to the state. He therefore urged the PAC to continue fast tracking their public sittings on his reports to ensure timely recovery of all disallowed expenditure indicated in the recommendations of the Auditor-General’s reports.
The Auditor-General thanked the members of the Coalition for coming to seek further clarification on the issue that is of such interest to the public. He said that he is always available in his office to explain issues concerning the Auditor-General’s Reports.
