TI: SAIs

The role of SAIs in controlling corruption

A (SAI) is a country’s lead audit organisation

SAIs examine whether public funds are spent economically, efficiently and effectively in compliance with existing rules and regulations

The four core objectives [outlined in the Lima Declaration of Guidelines on Auditing Precepts], agreed by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI 1998) are :

•   the proper and effective use of public funds
•   the development of sound financialmanagement
•   the proper execution of administrativeactivities
•   the communication of information to publicauthorities and the general public through the publication of objective reports

SAIs contribute to anticor by way of:  detection and prevention:

a. detect fraud/corruption through compliance and/or forensic audits, which are designed to ensure that laws, rules and regulations are observed.

b. prevent fraud/corruption by promoting sound public financial management systems based on reliable reporting and robust control mechanisms, which contribute to support transparency and accountability in the public sector….. eg. via publication of audit reports

SAI anticor strategies 

1. Strengthening pb internal control systems:  accurate, complete and timely financial reporting; a reliable system of internal controls; compliance with laws and regulations; and cost accounting capabilities. egs:

•   verifying whether proper procedures are in place for authorising payments
•   ascertaining whether there is a strict separation of needs specification, planning, contracting, and accounting and settlement in government procurement
•   checking whether staff in areas prone to corruption (such as procurement, construction and licensing) are being rotated, and use of pre-employment screening

2. Focusing audits on areas at high risk of corruption: eg: the management of aid and subsidies; procurement; tax administration; and creation of publicly funded entities that are outside the scope of administrative law 

3. Forwarding information about suspected illegal/corrupt practices to the authorities

4. Coop/coord with other anticor bodies [this remains poor in most countries]…eg anti-corruption agencies (ACAs), heads of administration, the judiciary, the ombudsman, as well as non-state actors such as the media, civil society and citizens

5. Training and capacity building: 

6. Engaging with parliament on audit findings and recommendations

7. Engaging csos in audit processes: particularly in audit planning to better identify and address corruption risks

8. Raising public awareness of corruption risks :  some countries, eg france, have signed up to the Open Government Partnership (OGP) :committed to making financial data publicly available via an online platform

SAIs Anticor Tools

1/ via audits: 

•   financial audits that focus on providing a financial opinion on the annual accounts of public institutions
•   compliance audits that seek to verify the legality of the transactions made by public institutions
•   performance audits that assess the efficiency and effectiveness of public institutions’ use of resources…performance audits are the most useful to anti-corruption work, as they identify systemic weaknesses: eg  if the institutional framework and resources allocated to curbing corruption are not being used efficiently, effectively and equitably……performance audits asses the institutional framework [in place for countering corruption], with reference to :

• •   Economy: have human, financial or material resources been used economically to prevent corruption? Are management activities performed with sound administrative principles and good financial management policies?
  •   Efficiency: is the system delivering the best services for the resources allocated? Are anti-corruption institutions or structures using their capacities (mandate, resources, and so on) to the maximum level? Do the anti-corruption policies or programmes pay due consideration to the coordination of interventions and collaboration between several entities to avoid duplication of actions?
  •   Effectiveness: is the institution in question meeting its policy objectives? Are they achieving programme objectives in all sectors of governance and service delivery?
  •   Equity: how are resources allocated vis-à- vis the distribution and socio-economic profile of the target population? What strategies are adopted to adjust the supply of anti-corruption services or benefits to different needs? What strategies are adopted to consider gender issues and the inclusion of minorities in corruption prevention measures?

2/ via the ISSAI 130 – Code of Ethics:  provides SAIs with values and principles on which to base behaviour

3/ via IntoSAINT – A Tool to Assess the Integrity of SAIs:     www.intosaicbc.org/intosaint/

Stakeholder[ eg COCOO, csos, media] help to SAIs’ anticor work

For example, citizens and CSOs can help:

•  identify areas of possible corruption
• monitor the executive’s follow-up to audit reports and subsequent decisions taken by parliamentary committees
• Building technical capacity: SAIs can provide accessible and relevant information to enable citizens to meaningfully participate and demand accountability. They can do this by working with CSOs to build citizen literacy on financial management and oversight. CSOs working in specific fields can build upon the information SAIs produce, and adopt their methodologies for financial management and auditing to promote advocacy strategies aligned with their own objectives. Meanwhile, SAIs can also learn from civil society’s experience and methodologies for tracking public funds.
• Providing information for audits: citizens and CSOs can help SAIs identify possible areas of mismanagement, inefficiency and corruption through joint audits and social audits, thus expanding SAIs’ scope. They can provide valuable information for the audit process, which can enrich the audit results, especially for areas in which those stakeholders have specific knowledge and expertise
• Strengthening oversight and follow-up: citizens and CSOs can put pressure on legislative and executive agencies to take and enforce corrective actions as well as help monitor the executive ́s follow-up to audit reports and subsequent decisions taken by parliamentary committees. They can encourage open debates in parliament on SAI reports that include civil society and citizens. They can also perform a watchdog role over the appointment of SAIs’ board members and management to strengthen their institutional autonomy, and in some cases participate directly in the appointment of comptrollers, auditors and high-level officials.
• Building trust: as SAIs make their work visible and engage with external stakeholders, they can build trust and a strong reputation for the operations they perform. CSOs can support SAIs in this regard by running public awareness campaigns that raise the profile of audit reports and educate citizens about the role SAIs play in holding governments to account. Such campaigns could be built, for example, around databases that track what the government is doing to address audit findings.

risks from stakeholder participation in SAIs

-the potential undermining of the independence, objectivity and credibility of SAIs

-delays and higher costs of the audit process, work overload, participatory fatigue and bureaucratic resistance

stakeholder engagement tools

-E-Guide on Participatory Audit:  https://www.e- participatoryaudit.org/introduction.php
See also: https://www.e- participatoryaudit.org/module-02/audit-proper- participatory.php

-Guidance in Sais’ Engagement with Stakeholders https://www.idi.no/en/elibrary/cdp/sais-engaging- with-stakeholders-programme/697-idi-sais- engaging-with-stakeholders-guide/file

– the TAP Network:  https://sdgaccountability.org/working-on-oversight- for-accountability/utilizing-supreme-audit- institutions