The rot in Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Transport- Part Six

4.6.5.1       The Committee recommends that the Ministry should, by 30th September 2017, submit to Parliament evidence of recoveries made and a schedule showing officers who are yet to acquit and action being taken to recover the amounts.

4.6.6 Procurement of fuel on behalf of the Ministry

Audit observed that the Fund purchased fuel coupons with a value of $707 921 in 2014 and $953 757 in 2013. The fuel coupons were issued to VID depots and to the parent Ministry.  It was observed that part of the fuel expenditure amounting to $227 840 was paid without compiling payment vouchers.  It was also observed that the Fund and Ministry accounting systems are not integrated, posing a risk of fraud if adequate records are not maintained.

The Permanent Secretary again defended the use of Fund resources to meet expenditure funded by appropriated funds on the basis that the Fund had no independent stuff but was administered by officials at the Ministry’s Head Office. Though the Head Office officials administer the Fund, it is the considered view of the Committee that there should be a clear demarcation of expenditures and ensures that Fund revenue is utilised for the purpose for which the Fund was established.

4.6.6.1 The Committee recommends that the Ministry should, by 30th September, 2017, set up a Management Committee responsible for the day to day running of the Fund.

4.6.6.2       Treasury should, by 30th September, 2017, review and advice on the continued retention of funds by the Ministry, in view of the violations observed.

4.6.7 Advances to Treasury

It has been reported that in 2009 the Fund advanced $888 678 to Treasury for the purchase of vehicle spare parts.  Since that time the amount has been appearing in the Fund’s balance sheet as an advance.  There was no evidence of follow up to ensure that the advance was recovered.

The Permanent Secretary informed the Committee that the Ministry made some follow ups with Treasury and the response was that Treasury was looking at advances from these funds in a holistic manner. Again, the Committee was dismayed to note that the Permanent Secretary gave a response that was at variance with the one he previous gave to auditors. He had said to the auditors that the amount was wrongly classified as an advance to Treasury when in fact it should have been treated as an expense. He indicated that the error had since been corrected. Under such circumstances, the Committee is left wondering as to what exactly is the correct position regarding the matter.

4.6.7.1       The Committee recommends that the Ministry should, by 31st August 2017, submit to Parliament documentary evidence regarding the correct stance in relation to the advance.   

Continued next page

(242 VIEWS)