Transparency Solomon Islands calls for OAG’s audit report on ESP to be debated in parliament
BY JOHN HOUANIHAU
Transparency Solomon Islands (TSI) has highlighted the need for the Auditor General’s report on the Economic Stimulus Package 2020-21 to be brought to parliament.
The Auditor General’s office (OAG) released its audit report of the economic stimulus package (ESP) covering the period from 2020-2021 on Wednesday this week.
The report uncovered an extensive pattern of major fraud risks involving government ministries, agencies and officials, private businesses and individuals.
The ESP programme saw the spending of $309 million public funds with no set rules, laws or framework, no transparency, no documentation and no accountability.
Although a small portion of the report mentions few individuals receiving and utilising funds, the overwhelming majority of findings point to – companies getting windfall profits and individuals getting rich overnight.
Speaking to Island Sun yesterday, Transparency Solomon Islands’ (TSI) acting CEO, Legal Officer Joy Abia stresses that “such reports are significant for public transparency and require a debate in the parliament”.
Ms Abia also highlights that “nothing or no conviction has been made for the past years” following such a report being made known.
“It is a requirement, that such reports must be brought and debated in the parliament.
“This will allow the public to access and have many insights regarding what happened.
“That is transparency and accountability. It would be also better to review the legislation,” she said.
“Review of the legislation is one of the important aspects to strengthen and enhance the work they do. It’s a must also for the government to consider this,” said Abia.
Briefing media on the Report before its official launch on Wednesday, Auditor General David Dennis clarified that his office does not prosecute nor does it comment on policies, although popular public view desires this.
Mr Dennis also clarified that the report does not comment on the whether the ESP was effective in achieving its purpose to buffer the economy against the pandemic’s impacts or not.
The followings are a few examples of the discrepancies the OAG investigation found:
One government official was found to have signed off on 251 cheques totalling $6.8 million purportedly on behalf of recipients. The was no document to prove this officer was authorised by the recipients to do so.
This same officer was involved in encouraging and preparing applications for individuals, the report said.
Three government officers (including the one above) were found to have signed off on a ‘vast number’ of payments on behalf of recipients, with no documents to say whether these three officers were authorised to.
An ESP recipient was given an $80,000 cheque and told to cash it and return to the government office, where the officer took $20,000.
More than 2,000 grant payments were made, but only 200 applications could be found for review by OAG, raising the question as to where and what happened to the rest.
There was no standard application form, and applications ranged from 30-page comprehensive proposals to a single page.
One letter simply stated ‘I am writing to request the above funding ($1 million) to assist in enhancing the transportation needs of my constituency. Grateful please to facilitate the disbursement as soon as it is practicable.’ This was a cash grant to a MP with no requirements attached.
One constituency got $1million for transport purposes and $200,000 was paid out as ‘canteen assistance’.
Of the 24 payments for infrastructure which totalled $14 million, all were for government MPs only – none for any Opposition MP.
Government helped themselves to the bulk of $55 million for constituency offices for productive and resources sector or infrastructure. Opposition MP constituencies generally received less.
Double dipping by some recipients who took from the constituency ESP funds and the main ESP grant process, due to the use of constituency development offices to distribute funds.
One constituency development office purchased a capital equipment for $1.75 million based on only a single quote using ESP funds.
Some preferred suppliers received windfall profits when paid directly by ESP but the recipients did not collect their materials. No government follow-up.
Some recipients received far less than they had applied for, while others got far more than they had requested.
Case study shows requests varying from $2,719 to $3,860 and each were approved $15,000. Another applied for $5 million but received only $5,000. No documents to explain these approvals.
