Does GAC Still Deserve Taxpayers' Monies?
SOURCE: AN ANALYSIS BY SHERMAN C. SEEQUEH









Taxpayers in Liberia and Europe, perhaps also in other African countries, and perhaps in the Americas and the Eastern bloc, have graciously funded the operations of the General Auditing Commission. These countries and peoples might have been lured by the sweetened proposition that the Commission, created by the Constitution of Liberia, is key in the protection, defense and support of the country’s resources, which from time immemorial had—and still have copiously—fallen to scoundrels’ plunder and thereby be able to equitably spread the national wealth. Monies committed to the operations of GAC since 2006 when Ellen Johnson Sirleaf administration took state power, by conservable estimate, is put at more than two billion United States Dollars, national and international resources combined. Unfortunately, Government’s opinion regarding the significance and relevance of the Commission, as stated rather sporadically in the past, has now come out more forcefully and conclusively as a Government policy statement: that “mere GAC audit reports are no basis for prosecution”; that they lack sufficient evidence for prosecution; that GAC audit reports are unprofessional, marred by procedural lapses. With these querying and repudiating diagnosis from the Ministry of Justice, which is supposed to use the reports to track and prosecute would-be culprits, should the GAC still exist and benefit from national and international taxpayers?

I am saying a big NO for the following reasons: Firstly and technically speaking, Government of which the GAC is an integral part has unequivocally passed a vote of no-confidence in the Commission. The GAC does not, and is not supposed to, act in isolation. It needs, and depends, on other arms of Government to execute and finish its mandate, which is to ensure for the accountability of public money. However, the GAC’s task ends when an audit is conducted and produced and submitted to the Legislature and Executive. But when the Government’s Justice Ministry which is supposed to use the report to bring suspected culprits to accountability is saying the reports are wanting of standard and sustenance and cannot go to court on the reports’ merits, and when the Legislature is webbed in inertia and the President’s silent sounds patronizing, then why should GAC continue to operate, let alone exist? I even doubt why the wild or worthless bluff about the creation and support to GAC in the first place.

Secondly, while it is true that John Morlu is no more at the GAC—Morlu whose audit reports are deemed so “unprofessional” and “marred by procedural lapses”—there is no assurance that even audit reports produced after Morlu and those to be produced up to the expiry of the Sirleaf administration will be treated differently by the administration. I think so because the audit format at the GAC remains virtually the same. Morlu’s trainees and principles are still firmly in place at the GAC and the staff believe that their modus operandi before, now and ever is correct and professional. The evidence of this is candidly expressed in the post-Morlu GAC’s recent reaction to critics, including the Ministry of Justice and Information. And by the time President Sirleaf is successful in “cleaning up” the GAC by replacing the structure already in place, as earlier attempts such as the appointment of shamed Robert Kilby already have proven ill-fated, no audit report different from Morlu’s format will see the light of day. In this case, which is highly likely, why should taxpayers, national and international, commit their quotas to the GAC whose audit reports are repugnant to the tastes of Government and are of no basis for prosecution and the general fight against corruption?

Thirdly, the Sirleaf administration has got no record submitting to and crediting reports from external evaluators on its own deportment. Nearly 80 audit reports produced by the GAC are not the only evaluation reports on the Government’s governance system, be it financial or otherwise, dusting on the shelf. Every insightful finding from investigations conducted by other national panels and international organizations are also dusting due to government indifference.  Findings of even the best of international auditing firms were dismissed by the Government. With such a demonstrated repulsive nature and allergy of government to external evaluation, what is the hope and assurance that the Government will ever change its disposition on GAC audit report in the near future? Should taxpayers monies still be committed to the Commission?

Fourthly, it seems the Government is more interested in, or obsessed with the sense of, preserving its wild (not wide) international reputation than to submit to genuine self-assessment and internal purification. For whatever reason, the Government is internationally perceived to doing its best at national reforms and to alleviate the suffering of the people of Liberia. Though that perception is diametrically different at the home front, the head of the government has received so much attention, respect and accolades abroad. It is this obsession to keep to “righteous” credentials of Government that auditees hardly admit the system faults and even outright fraud. It is for the same reason that President puts on “her neck on the chopping-board” vouching for indictees of GAC reports.

Heeding GAC reports which reveal and convey massive acts of corruption by public officials is a resounding contradiction of the Government’s wildly internationally perceived “righteous” appellation; something that Government cannot afford to do and which therefore strategically justifies its belligerence to GAC’s revealing reports. Will the government ever credit such reports that the Government sees as impugning on its self-celebrated image? The Government will never ever accept GAC report.

With these four counts on the Government’s relationship with the GAC, it is folly that anyone would expect the Sirleaf administration to, now and in the immediate future, give credence to GAC audit reports. And it would be equally folly to keep the GAC running at the expense of taxpayers—both national and international. If there is therefore any reason the GAC is, and should, be left to operate under the circumstances, that reason is—and only remain—to promote a big pension scheme where Liberians are provided salaries and benefits without providing services. For what good are services provided that have no relevance to the growth of the mother organization!  

Taxpayers in Liberia and Europe, perhaps also in other African countries, and perhaps in the Americas and the Eastern bloc, have graciously funded the operations of the General Auditing Commission. These countries and peoples might have been lured by the sweetened proposition that the Commission, created by the Constitution of Liberia, is key in the protection, defense and support of the country’s resources, which from time immemorial had—and still have copiously—fallen to scoundrels’ plunder and thereby be able to equitably spread the national wealth. Monies committed to the operations of GAC since 2006 when Ellen Johnson Sirleaf administration took state power, by conservable estimate, is put at more than two billion United States Dollars, national and international resources combined. Unfortunately, Government’s opinion regarding the significance and relevance of the Commission, as stated rather sporadically in the past, has now come out more forcefully and conclusively as a Government policy statement: that “mere GAC audit reports are no basis for prosecution”; that they lack sufficient evidence for prosecution; that GAC audit reports are unprofessional, marred by procedural lapses. With these querying and repudiating diagnosis from the Ministry of Justice, which is supposed to use the reports to track and prosecute would-be culprits, should the GAC still exist and benefit from national and international taxpayers?

I am saying a big NO for the following reasons: Firstly and technically speaking, Government of which the GAC is an integral part has unequivocally passed a vote of no-confidence in the Commission. The GAC does not, and is not supposed to, act in isolation. It needs, and depends, on other arms of Government to execute and finish its mandate, which is to ensure for the accountability of public money. However, the GAC’s task ends when an audit is conducted and produced and submitted to the Legislature and Executive. But when the Government’s Justice Ministry which is supposed to use the report to bring suspected culprits to accountability is saying the reports are wanting of standard and sustenance and cannot go to court on the reports’ merits, and when the Legislature is webbed in inertia and the President’s silent sounds patronizing, then why should GAC continue to operate, let alone exist? I even doubt why the wild or worthless bluff about the creation and support to GAC in the first place.

Secondly, while it is true that John Morlu is no more at the GAC—Morlu whose audit reports are deemed so “unprofessional” and “marred by procedural lapses”—there is no assurance that even audit reports produced after Morlu and those to be produced up to the expiry of the Sirleaf administration will be treated differently by the administration. I think so because the audit format at the GAC remains virtually the same. Morlu’s trainees and principles are still firmly in place at the GAC and the staff believe that their modus operandi before, now and ever is correct and professional. The evidence of this is candidly expressed in the post-Morlu GAC’s recent reaction to critics, including the Ministry of Justice and Information. And by the time President Sirleaf is successful in “cleaning up” the GAC by replacing the structure already in place, as earlier attempts such as the appointment of shamed Robert Kilby already have proven ill-fated, no audit report different from Morlu’s format will see the light of day. In this case, which is highly likely, why should taxpayers, national and international, commit their quotas to the GAC whose audit reports are repugnant to the tastes of Government and are of no basis for prosecution and the general fight against corruption?

Thirdly, the Sirleaf administration has got no record submitting to and crediting reports from external evaluators on its own deportment. Nearly 80 audit reports produced by the GAC are not the only evaluation reports on the Government’s governance system, be it financial or otherwise, dusting on the shelf. Every insightful finding from investigations conducted by other national panels and international organizations are also dusting due to government indifference.  Findings of even the best of international auditing firms were dismissed by the Government. With such a demonstrated repulsive nature and allergy of government to external evaluation, what is the hope and assurance that the Government will ever change its disposition on GAC audit report in the near future? Should taxpayers monies still be committed to the Commission?

Fourthly, it seems the Government is more interested in, or obsessed with the sense of, preserving its wild (not wide) international reputation than to submit to genuine self-assessment and internal purification. For whatever reason, the Government is internationally perceived to doing its best at national reforms and to alleviate the suffering of the people of Liberia. Though that perception is diametrically different at the home front, the head of the government has received so much attention, respect and accolades abroad. It is this obsession to keep to “righteous” credentials of Government that auditees hardly admit the system faults and even outright fraud. It is for the same reason that President puts on “her neck on the chopping-board” vouching for indictees of GAC reports.

Heeding GAC reports which reveal and convey massive acts of corruption by public officials is a resounding contradiction of the Government’s wildly internationally perceived “righteous” appellation; something that Government cannot afford to do and which therefore strategically justifies its belligerence to GAC’s revealing reports. Will the government ever credit such reports that the Government sees as impugning on its self-celebrated image? The Government will never ever accept GAC report.

With these four counts on the Government’s relationship with the GAC, it is folly that anyone would expect the Sirleaf administration to, now and in the immediate future, give credence to GAC audit reports. And it would be equally folly to keep the GAC running at the expense of taxpayers—both national and international. If there is therefore any reason the GAC is, and should, be left to operate under the circumstances, that reason is—and only remain—to promote a big pension scheme where Liberians are provided salaries and benefits without providing services. For what good are services provided that have no relevance to the growth of the mother organization!  

 
comments powered by Disqus