THE Budget Book Making System (BBMS) in Sindh was conceived as a digital governance platform to enhance trans-parency, preserve institutional account-ability, maintain comprehensive audit trails, and ensure that the provincial Annual Development Programme (ADP) is formulated strictly in accordance with approved governmental procedures. However, the manner in which the ADP 2026-27 was prepared has given rise to legitimate questions.

It is a matter of grave concern that two ex-cadre technical officials are being subjected to proceedings for alleged irregularities in the BBMS process. These officials neither designed the BBMS architecture, nor exercised policy-level authority over ADP formulation. They did not possess the administrative powers to determine sectoral allocations.

Every addition, deletion, modification, reallocation or revision within the BBMS should be attributable to an identified user, accompanied by date and time stamps, the approving authority and the legal basis for the change. If the BBMS permitted modifications without a transparent approval hierarchy or a verifiable digital audit trail, the issue is one of systemic governance rather than individual misconduct.

The government should constitute an independent forensic inquiry into the entire BBMS-based formulation of the provincial ADP. The inquiry should examine the complete system architecture, audit logs, user access records, workflow histories, approval hierarchies, time-stamps of every single modification, digital permission and direction issued during the formulation process.

It should also determine the extent of participation of administrative depart-ments, identify the authorities responsible for approving changes to departmental portfolios, and assess whether or not the BBMS was operated in conformity with the relevant rules, regulations and estab- lished principles of public administration.

Raja Masroor Hassan
Karachi

Published in Dawn, July 25th, 2026