13
THE good news is that the Supreme Court has decreed that all government departments and organisations must submit themselves to scrutiny by the auditor general of Pakistan.
The bad news is that this constitutional body is not fit for the purpose. I base this opinion on nearly 30 years in the audit department where I worked in various capacities and in different locations. Over this period, the auditor general himself was free of charges of misconduct, although the same could not be said for some who worked under him.
However, this changed with the appointment of Akhtar Buland Rana, an officer of the department, by the Zardari government. According to a report in this newspaper, he’s from Multan, and allegedly a friend of the ex-prime minister, Mr Gilani. Earlier this year, he was unceremoniously removed by the present government on charges of misconduct.
In most cases, the quality of audit is pretty abysmal.
Ex-colleagues had alleged that certain lucrative posts in the department had been sold, but I just couldn’t believe such sordid rumours as I had worked under several upright men of outstanding calibre. Nevertheless, the department itself was not attuned to a fast-changing professional environment.
The reality is that the recruitment process itself is outmoded: one examination is supposed to select young officers to a wide range of federal occupational groups, ranging from the foreign service to the police. Traditionally, these two services, plus the district management group, were the first three preferences of candidates taking the Central Superior Services exam. Increasingly, though, candidates give customs and income tax as their first two choices, for obvious reasons.
Thus, audit comes a distant sixth in the list, and therefore draws those whose results — or regional quota — did not qualify for any of the more desirable services. Probably none of them have any knowledge of accounting when they join the service. In the first year of their training, they are acquainted with the subject, and when they are finally confirmed in their service group, they are given more intensive training in their required specialisations.
However, considering that accountancy is a difficult — and for me, boring — subject, a one-year course in which a number of other topics are also taught is insufficient. So it is no surprise that most young officers have only a vague idea of the intricacies of the profession. Also, most of these new entrants carry a sense of disappointment at not having made their preferred service.
So barring a few, none of these young men and women have much pride in what they will do for the rest of their working lives. They are also aware that their staff will do much of the actual number-crunching. In the interest of full disclosure, let me cheerfully confess that after all my years in the audit department, I probably could not prepare the balance sheet for a paan shop.
At the top of the pyramid comes the Public Accounts Committee, parliament’s powerful watchdog. This body consists of members from both sides of the National Assembly, and is usually chaired by a member of the opposition. Meetings are held to discuss the AGP’s reports on the audited accounts of the departments his officers have scrutinised. Secretaries of the ministries are present in their capacity of principal accounting officers.
Members of the PAC ask questions, and if a serious irregularity appears, much criticism is voiced. Almost invariably, the secretary concerned defends himself by saying he was not in charge when the wrongdoing took place. Equally inevitably, a committee consisting of a member of the PAC, and officers from the audit department and the ministry concerned, is formed.
And here, in most cases, the matter rests. It would be an interesting exercise for Mr Khursheed Shah, the current chairman of the PAC, to ask for a list of all the hundreds of committees set up in the last 10 years, and the number of reports actually submitted. Bureaucrats are past masters at setting up committees, thereby seeming to be doing something when they have actually kicked the problem into the tall grass.
In most cases, the quality of audit is pretty abysmal. Instead of seeking to look into structural problems, government auditors check mostly routine documents, lacking the forensic skills to probe deeper. When audit teams brought me their field reports, I used to be embarrassed by the superficiality of their observations.
This level of audit was perhaps acceptable in colonial times when the role of government had not expanded to include commercial activities and complex development projects. But now, the audit of a controversial power plant like the one at Nandipur calls for technical knowledge simply not available with the AGP. And government rules make it difficult for him to hire consultants.
Finally, in cases of corruption, no record of kickbacks is part of the paper trail auditors follow. Far better than relying on audits and inquiries would be to ask politicians, bureaucrats, generals and judges to prove how their assets were acquired.
Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
