• The impression the public gets is of a parliament that does not care or does not have the tools or the will to remedy the wrongs.
• Closing the gap is what for me I would look at. Remember there is another aspect to it that it is not just through criminal law.
I think the accountability chain is pretty long. I believe the initial failures are with Parliament.
That is where these reports (audit) are supposed to go and Parliament is the supreme oversight organ.
Remember, parliament has the responsibility of oversight over the executive.
Looking at the Auditor General's reports and what happens after the reports are presented before MPs does not inspire confidence.
The impression the public gets is of a parliament that does not care or does not have the tools or the will to remedy the wrongs.
Normally, the Senate shows enthusiasm to put an end to the wanton wastage of public resources. But MPs do not show a similar desire.
If you look at the reports themselves and how they are dealt with by the investigative agencies, there seems to be a yawning gap between the time these reports are presented to Parliament and the time investigative agencies kick into action.
I think it would be really good if the Auditor General could work alongside investigative agencies. This will make the process to yield quick results and win public confidence.
Closing the gap is what for me I would look at. Remember there is another aspect to it that it is not just through criminal law.
We hold the view that the Auditor General's reports are sufficient for IEBC, which look at the integrity of and suitability of candidates for elective or appointive office, to pick them up and enforce.
Those reports are enough evidence to provide grounds to prevent someone from assuming office. If you have been an accounting officer in an institution where the Auditor General finds that money cannot be accounted for, then you really have no moral authority to occupy another office unless you are cleared.
I know that some people defend themselves by saying you are innocent until proven guilty, but that is only for purposes of punishment.
For purposes of leadership, it is a position of trust and therefore, ideally, the best in society are the only ones who should be entrusted with those roles.
The Transparency Internation executive director spoke to the Star