To this end, the ACC in 2010 started reviewing the internal systems and procedures for a number of institutions. The Commission has so far completed reviews for eight government ministries, including Education, Health, Local Government, Police, Fire Force, Agriculture, Prisons, Customs, and Works. The Commission also reviewed the internal control mechanisms for the Coalition for Health and the Milton Margai College for Education and Technology. As part of the process, the ACC reviewed mostly financial management and budgeting systems, procurement guidelines, storing facilities, records and assets management, human resources, project implementation and internal audit. The ACC says it believes that adequate financial management forms the topmost priority for most government institutions, as it lays the basis for good service delivery. For instance, considerable amount of money and other resources are regularly transferred from the central government to Local Government ministry for the 19 councils to undertake service delivery.[4] Also, the report on the Prisons Services shows that that the institution will be stalled if there are insufficient funds to carry out its activities. In the Prisons department, budget preparation usually includes heads of regional units, so as to enable them communicate their financial difficulties.[5]
While a huge chunk of allocated budget comes from government coffers, funds have been equally coming from donor partners. Also, some government ministries conduct income generation activities. For example, local government bodies generate income through the collection of surface rent, proceeds from local taxes, licences and market bills.
Like all financial management systems, budget execution or allocation plays another important role in the functions of government institutions. Budget allocation is usually discussed by Budget Management Committee before it is approved and subsequently disbursed. Once it has been allocated, all expenses are monitored by the Committee. Sadly, however, the ACC has noted that some members of the Monitoring Committee are unqualified, lacking the required expertise to monitor and report how money was been spent. Closely related to this is procurement management, which provides for the acquisition of goods and services of the right quality and quantity that meet the value-for-money principle. It is incumbent on all government institutions to have a procurement unit. Nonetheless, some do not have one, perhaps deliberately to avoid compliance with procurement procedures. Where they are present, they do not comply with the provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2004. For instance, in some District Councils, the Finance Officers are allowed to procure without receiving confirmation from procurement committee.[6] Similarly, contracts are awarded after circumventing procurement procedures. This was realised in some of the constructions carried out by the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).[7] Also, there appears to be the willingness in some institutions to comply with procurement procedure, but the framework required for such efficiency is unavailable. For example, the procurement unit at the National Fire Force is grossly under-staffed, and there is the lack of equipment to carry out their activities. Also, adherence to procurement procedures is not decentralised across the country. Instead, it is centralised in Freetown, from where all procurement arrangements are conducted and delivered to provincial offices.
Store and record managements were also placed under review, with the Commission noting that records usually provide the primary source of data which guarantees effective transparency and accountability. While some institutions endeavour to maintain storing records and other documents, there is a complete lack of laid down store management rules, and this has left some important records at the mercy of corrupt officials who usually destroy them. Finally, the ACC found out that some institutions such as the National Fire Force (NFF) did not have an internal auditor or any internal auditing mechanism. This created a possibility of manipulating financial records before they were provided to external auditors.
For nearly all the systems reviewed, the ACC made a host of recommendations aimed at lessening the risk of corruption. On financial management, the Commission recommends that, information on financial operations such as budget allocation should be communicated to all those concerned or all those who might be affected by such disbursement. Furthermore, the ACC has generally urged government institutions to help generate income. The ACC also recommended that certain legislations be reviewed. For instance, it recommended that the Prison Ordinance Act of 1960 be reviewed in order to reflect the modern management of prison services.
There should also be an annual review mechanism for government institutions to enable them keep track on progress made during the course of the year. There should be total adherence to all existing legislations, including the ACC Act and the Public Procurement Act. Corruption legislations will help guide the performance of institutions, and this in turn will help prevent corruption. Acting under its section 7 (k) powers, the Commission produced Best Practices Guides for public auction and the use of government properties as provided in section 7 (k) which states that the Commission can draft model codes of conduct and advise public bodies as to the adoption of such code of conduct as may be suited to such bodies.
CARL-SL wishes to remind the ACC of its responsibility to monitor its recommendations in order to ensure that government and other institutions have implemented or are implementing them. It is also important that the Commission provides regular updates on its monitoring activities, by indicating progress and gaps. The ACC should also begin to directly link success stories arising from its systems review processes. For instance, have any indictments been enhanced by the ACC’s systems review processes? Has any institution saved more money, or generated more money, or delivered more services with the same amount of resources as a result of the review process? For instance, when the ACC recently helped increase revenue generation at the Births and Deaths department, it issued a statement highlighting its role.
That was commendable, but the institution needs to undertake an annual stock taking of how the reviewed institutions are performing. Finally, the Commission needs to scale up efforts at completing the review exercise. We are not sure how much time has been allocated for this, but the longer it takes, the more some institutions continue to do the wrong things.
[1] See Sec 7 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2008
[2] Ibid
[3] See Sec 7 (h) of the ACC Act 2008
[4] See ACC’s “Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in the Local Governance: Report on Systems Review in the Ministry of Local Government”
[5] See ACC’s Improving Minimum Standards of the Sierra Leone Prisons, 2010.
[6] See ACC’s “Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in the Local Governance: Report on Systems Review in the Ministry of Local Government”
[7] Ibid
