May 25, 2007	Friday	Jamadi-ul-Awwal 08, 1428

RAWALPINDI, May 24: The accountability mechanism of the local government system has not been fully functional due to lack of finances, staff and cooperation by nazims and the bureaucracy.

According to a report compiled by the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), assessing the working of the accountability mechanism with respect to the performance of local governments (LG), both internal and external means of accountability have failed to deliver to a large extent.

Interestingly, the Code of Conduct Committees of all district councils have not reported a single case, involving any official or public representative, for violating the code of conduct.

Under section 137 of the Local Government Ordinance (LGO) 2001, every citizen has the right to information about any local government office and to make this possible they have to display as much information as possible.

The report says local governments never post any information to facilitate common people. Similarly, LGs have to establish a ‘complaint cell’ to redress people’s grievances but a majority were without such cells.

Monitoring Committees, elected by the zila council, were set up under the LGO in every district to monitor the functioning of LGs, preparing quarterly evaluation reports and presenting them to respective councils.

However, lack of resources and follow-up by local administrations and nazims have made such committees virtually non-functional.

The role of the District Accounts Committees has also not been different. Only 19 such committees were working in 35 districts of the Punjab and 16 in 23 districts of Sindh. These committees, according to the NRB report, have not been consistent in carrying out their prescribed roles.

Interestingly, the code of conduct committees of every district council have reported no case involving any official or public representative who had violated the code of conduct. These committees were set up to monitor the adherence of all officials and elected people to a prescribed code of conduct. The report also deplores that the office of zila mohtasib (district ombudsman) has not been established, as envisaged in the LGO.

As far as the role of nazims in the accountability process at the district town and union council levels is concerned, they have not carried out their duties fully. The district nazim was responsible to appoint an internal auditor but no such office had been established.

The case of all district, town and union councils, regarding reviewing of monitoring committees’ reports, audit reports of accounts committees have not been a success. Every council failed to fully utilise its accountability authority.

The report has also criticized the external accountability means, such as the Auditor General of Pakistan (AJP), provincial governments, the provincial local government commission and the provincial finance commission. The AGP can audit local governments but its process is so slow that the councils do not get the reports in time and appropriate timely action cannot be taken.

Provincial governments have also failed to change their role in respect to LGs. Instead of policy-making, setting performance standards and having checks on LGs, the provincial governments were still involved in the execution and implementation of local government functions.

In three provinces, the Provincial Local Government Commission has not been functioning fully. The commission was set up to resolve disputes and check violation of LGO. The main function of the provincial finance commission is to ensure that the fiscal transfers are taking place in accordance with the award. It has, however, been overshadowed by the finance department and its members have not been able to assert themselves.

NRB, in its report, suggested the early provision of finances and staff and less intervention of provincial governments for an improved accountability mechanism.