THE Auditor General’s (AG) Report is vital to governance, given that it establishes, after review, government’s conformity — or lack thereof — to laws and accounting principles pertaining to management of the people’s money, i.e. revenue and expenditure.

When representatives of this office visit departments and agencies, what they are doing is ensuring that those assigned responsibilities to manage the people’s finances are following the stipulated protocols. Compliance with required standards not only brings about prudent money management, including reduction and elimination of waste, fraud and abuse, but also helps Guyana’s international image as a country that is averse to corrupt practices.

Findings in the report also impact internal politics, one way or the other, given that such serve as gauge of the incumbent’s tolerance or intolerance for corrupt practices, and adherence to or rejection of the procedures in money management. The AG’s Report is looked forward to by various sections of society, including government, opposition, civil society and regional and international institutions. The reason for this being the report not only highlights government’s performance, but also indicates to the international community whether Guyana facilitates the environment for investment and good governance.

From a raw political standpoint, such report provides fodder to condemn the incumbent or see it earning the people’s respect, including the opposition, however grudgingly. Transparency International is also guided by this report in compiling its World Corruption Perception Index Report and Guyana’s placement. Last year recorded improvement, however marginal, after having held the embarrassing position of being the most corrupt English-speaking Caribbean country, an ill-repute with which no right-thinking citizen would want to associate.

Last Thursday, the 2016 AG’s Report was laid before the National Assembly, which will see it being hotly debated and thoroughly scrubbed. 2016 recorded a complete calendar year of the APNU+AFC government and responsibility for what is in the report. Areas of significance have been highlighted such as: i) alleged abuse of the Contingency Fund, ii) non- implementation of all recommendations and iii) non-submission of records, signalling the importance for attention.

Where it has been reported, spending from the Contingency Fund inconsistent with the Fiscal Management and Responsibility Act, what would be expected is that where explanations are provided that they be judged based on its merit and systems put in place to avoid any untoward recurrence. The same goes for non-submission of a department’s report that would have aided better understanding of its management.

One of the advantages of recommendations is that of helping planners and executors of projects to improve accounting and transparency, and should be taken in good faith.
According to Auditor General Deodat Sharma, the 2015 Report made 442 recommendations to improve the accounting system. Some of these were partially implemented and some not at all. It could only be hoped that going forward, Mr. Sharma’s advice to address the recommendations will be heeded.

Government could find it necessary to make mandatory the implementation of recommendations or consequences be felt for failing to. Dare it be said starting now. Doing so sends a strong message of intolerance to poor or bad practices and preparedness to hold persons to account. No public official, elected and appointed, acting on behalf of the people and/or the President should be made to feel that their disregard for proper systems will find favour and acceptance by any.