Maravi

Accounting for public funds privately

Accounting for public funds privately
By Editor
Wednesday April 18, 2007 [04:00]

It is easier said than done, so states one of the wise sayings.
President Levy Mwanawasa’s administration, according to their daily pronouncements, is anchored on accountability, transparency, good governance and the observance of the rule of law; not the rule of man. When Zambians favoured him with the leadership of the country in 2002, Levy launched himself on a pad of zero-tolerance to corruption. However, this fight started off on a rocky path and very little success has been recorded.

Indeed, little success has been recorded largely because lip service is being paid to these pronouncements. It is one thing for Levy and his administration to declare accountability, transparency, good governance and the rule of law and another to put such declarations into practice.

The financial irregularities being unearthed by the Auditor General’s office through the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is testimony to this fact. It is clear that billions of our taxpayers funds are stolen by the civil servants who have been entrusted with the responsibility to administer such funds. Undoubtedly, there is no accountability and transparency in the manner that our public funds are being managed by those charged with the responsibility, going by what has so far come out of the PAC. We are yet to be informed of a permanent secretary who has appeared before the PAC with no irregularities to clear with the Auditor General’s office.

On April 5, 2007 we reported that Auditor General Anna Chifungula had differed the previous day with Ministry of Health permanent secretary Dr Simon Miti over accountability in the ministry when the two appeared before the PAC. The difference occurred when Dr Miti disputed most of observations of financial irregularities in the Auditor General’s report and tried to defend the alleged financial misappropriations in his ministry.

Chifungula, on the other hand, maintained that accountability in the Ministry of Health left much to be desired and that Dr Miti did not always co-operate with her office in answering audit queries and providing the necessary documentation. Dr Miti disputed this and clearly, Chifungula was not amused.

That’s how the PAC resolved to invite Secretary to the Cabinet Dr Joshua Kanganja to intervene in these misunderstandings between Chifungula and Miti. All this happened before members of the press. And this incident was widely covered in the national media.

Dr Miti welcomed the PAC’s decision because the relationship between his office and that of Chifungula was not good and he did not want to “wash dirty linen in public”.

On the other hand, Chifungula has maintained that there is nothing personal or private between herself and Dr Miti. All she is interested in is for Dr Miti to answer to her audit queries. She says the issue of washing dirty linen in public should not arise because that is her duty if public funds are to be protected.

It is from this background that Kanganja last Friday appeared before the PAC. Surprisingly, the PAC decided to hold its sitting in camera on a matter that had already generated high public interest.

Here we are talking about accountability for public funds, not Chifungula’s or Miti’s personal funds. Surely, isn’t the public entitled to know how this difference between Chifungula and Dr Miti is resolved? Why should Kanganja be heard in camera when the issues he is clarifying are already in public domain?

Why should this be the case when the Auditor General has said there is nothing personal or private and that her duty is to wash dirty linen in public in order to protect public resources? Where is the transparency? Are we not entitled to know why K24 billion worth of drugs are expired when most of our health centres have no drugs? Why are we paying for the storage of expired drugs? Can these questions be answered before a Public Accounts Committee or Private Accounts Committee?


In saying this, we are not suggesting that Dr Miti is guilty or that the Auditor General is absolutely right. The Auditor General has merely raised questions seeking clarification from Dr Miti because she is not satisfied with what her office has discovered in the Ministry of Health. She is merely saying, ‘Dr Miti, explain here and there’. If the explanations are adequate, the issue will be reconciled and Chifungula’s fears’ will be allayed.

With what results? Our people will go and sleep soundly knowing that their money was in safe hands. Right now, our people have no good reason to believe that their money is safe, going by what is coming out of the PAC.

But when our people try to check how their money is being accounted for, someone says it’s criminal, someone says ‘just wait, we are discussing the matter privately. When we have resolved it, we will tell you the outcome’.

There is every need for members of the public to know what the problem is between Dr Miti and Chifungula because these are public servants. We want to know if they have allowed personal differences to come into their professional relationship. The public also deserves to know how Dr Miti has responded to the queries by Chifungula. This is the accountability and transparency we are talking about.

The PAC might think that they are concealing a lot of things by holding meetings in camera. But they should know that whatever they are discussing is not a secret. There is no secret under the sun and nothing will be concealed in this matter. And at the rate we are going, a lot of things are likely to come out. More names will be mentioned, more figures will be exposed. After all, this is the transparency and accountability that Levy advocates.

Labels: AUDITOR GENERAL, CORRUPTION, EDITORIAL, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, PAC

posted by MrK @ 4:14 AM