Draft National Audit Bill must be placed before public – AHRC
View(s):A National Audit Bill has been drafted in Sri Lanka regarding the post of the Auditor General following basic international principles that need to be adhered to in ensuring an independently functioning Auditor General’s Office. These principles have been incorporated into the National Audit Bill of Sri Lanka where the process has taken 14 years by a committee led by the Auditor General and assisted by several experts and the Attorney General in completing the final draft. A media release this week by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) stated that despite the priority attributed to establishing such a law as soon as possible, there now seems to be unwillingness to give the powers and independence that the Auditor General needs to have if the office is to function as a genuine and credible one.
According to the release, a new sub-committee has been appointed to look into the draft. The sub-committee comprised members of Parliament – Sarath Amunugama, Rauf Hakeem, Anura Priyadharshana-Yapa and Ravi Karunanayake. They have made several proposals which according to independent experts, will dilute the Audit Bill and will undermine the independence of the Auditor General. Independence is amongst the core principles found in laws relating to the Auditor General in most countries.
Some of the sub-committee’s recommendations and comments in accordance are as follows:
- The draft Bill does not recognise rules of natural justice in imposing surcharges, and experts point out that this criticism is not accurate in that all the safeguards usually included in such a law have been included in the draft Bill.
- The draft Bill shows that the sub-committee also does not agree with giving the Auditor General the authority to submit its budget directly. It has the authority to make such a submission, which is considered an essential aspect of the financial independence of the Auditor General’s Office, and this again is a principle that is now followed in most countries.
- Next, the sub-committee is also opposed to providing an individual fund to the Auditor General’s Department on the mistaken premise that public service institutions are not allowed to have such a fund. In fact, many other departments such as the Tax Department, Customs Department and the Attorney General’s Department have such funds. The purpose of setting up such a fund is for creating the possibility for the Auditor General to have qualified professionals who are able to carry out the functions authentically.
- The sub-committee is also of the view that internal audit plans being approved by the Auditor General are against the principles of internal audit. In fact, even now, the Finance Act 13 of 1971 (Section 13) and the Financial Regulations 134 (2) provide for exactly the same.
- The Sub-Committee is of the view that there is a need for a definition for “qualified auditor” when, in fact, the term has been defined in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 34(1) of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, reads as follows: “… There shall be an Auditor-General who shall be a qualified Auditor, and subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council, be appointed by the President and shall hold office during good behavior”.
In fact, the AHRC said that as the independence of the Auditor General’s Office is one of primary requirements for ensuring government accountability, the best course of action would be to place the Bill that has been drafted by the experts before the Parliament and thus ensure that any debate on the matter would be open to the public. -(NG)