CJ’s Office Bleeding From Massive Corruption

By Cecil Mensah

It is becoming evidently clear, that the Judiciary is not the forum to win the fight against corruption as details of an audit report on the service shows there are no proper methods of financial records keeping in the office of the Chief Justice (CJ) Mrs. Georgina Wood, therefore paving the way for corrupt practices to be perpetuated against the state.

The audit report available to The Herald has revealed that officials of the judicial service have been spending money belonging to the state without proper accounts records.

The report dated April 7, 2011 said although “section 1(b) of the Financial Act Regulation (FAR) 2004 enjoins any Public Officer who is responsible for the receipt, custody and disbursement of public and trust moneys to keep proper records of all transactions and shall produce them for inspection when called upon to do so by the Auditor-General or an officer authorized by him” the situation is otherwise in the Judiciary.

It explained that officers of the Judiciary from January 2008 to December 2009, spent moneys meant for the state without keeping any account records, stating what the moneys were used for.

A review of receipts, payments and recordings made in the cashbooks disclosed that records were not properly handled and maintained by account officers hence opening an avenue for all manner of corrupt practices to be perpetuated against the state.

The auditors observed that receipts were not recorded in the cashbooks, cashbooks were not balanced monthly, most of the entries in the cash books were made from cheque stubs instead of the payment vouchers and monthly bank reconciliation statements were all not prepared.

The auditors further noted that memos were used to write cheques instead of raising payment vouchers, entries in the cashbooks belonging to service could not be relied upon in the preparation of a financial statement of the service.

The auditors noted that lack of proper supervision by the Director of Finance contributed to the lapses in the audit, which was carried out from the period of January 2008 to December 2009 in accordance with the Auditor-General’s statutory mandate, under Article 187 clause 2 of the Constitution and section 11(1) of the Audit Service Act 2000 Act 5840.

The auditor said the lack of supervision in the service could lead to misappropriation and misapplication of funds and recommended that, to ensure that proper book-keeping is maintained, management should improve upon its supervisory role.

According to the audit report, management had still not responded to the queries raised in the audit let alone give an explanation for the above lapses.