4.3.4 Debtors
The Audit observed that the Fund advanced $61 109 to the Parent Ministry during the year 2009 to use on expenditure ordinarily met under the Appropriation account. No documentation was produced as authority for this advance. The amount was supposed to be refunded when releases were received from Treasury. However, the Ministry in 2016 is yet to reimburse the money.
The Permanent Secretary informed the Committee that investigation revealed that the amount was overstated as it included $30 000 payments from Bid Funds. The Ministry had requested authority from Treasury to utilise the account for the Fund. The balance of $15 000 was used for payment of G15 subscriptions and they were making efforts to reimburse the Fund.
The Committee noted with concern another violation of a Fund Constitution whereby the Ministry resorted to Fund revenue to support expenditures ordinary funded under the Appropriation account. There is a risk that Fund objectives will not be met as funds are utilised for unintended purposes.
4.3.4.1 The Committee recommends that the Ministry should submit evidence of the alleged errors, overstated amount of the debt and Treasury authority to utilise funds under the Fund by 31 December, 2016, failure to do so, the Ministry should reimburse the Fund by the same date.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Committee expressed deep concern on the reluctance of the Ministry to be up to date in terms of preparing and submission of accounts for Funds for purposes of auditing. In 2015, the Ministry was still reporting on 2013 and 2014 Accounts for the two Funds, namely the Standard Development Fund and the Trade Measures Fund. This is a serious violation of the PFMA considering that the Funds are collecting considerable amounts of money. For instance, the Standard Development Fund had in 2013 a total revenue of $13 239 369 against expenditure of $20 310 472, in 2014 the revenue stood at $14 271 437 and expenditure of $14 352 941 and in 2014 had a total revenue of $14 543 662 while expenditure stood at $9 696 926. The Ministry also did not properly manage public resources considering payments made for undelivered weighbridges and lack of follow up thereof. The Committee concludes that the accounting officer’s performance should be assessed within this context and given that the Ministry is key in revitalising the economy, Government may need to revisit the employment contract for the accounting officer. Public officials charged with the responsibility of managing public funds should exhibit high level of competencies in the execution of this important mandate.
(282 VIEWS)
