By Cecil Mensah
Details from an audit report carried on the Judicial Service have revealed
a very messy situation. A whopping amount of US$65,928.78 has been
withdrawn from the Foreign Deposit Accounts of the Judicial Service without
any proper documentation.
The amount, equivalent of GH¢11,43,000, according to the audit report dated
April 7, 2011 was used to pay for the travel allowances and per diems of
officials in the Chief Justice’s (CJ’s) office. The audit captures the
period January 2008 to December 2009, financial year.
It accused the management of the Judicial Service led by Mrs. Georgina Wood
of contravening ”the Financial Administration Regulations (FAR) 64
Legislative Instrument (LI) 1802 which states that, a head of department
shall be responsible for the proper collection and disposal of deposits in
accordance with these Regulations, and for maintaining accounts of
transaction in accordance with the regulations”.
This revelation follows a similar incident involving GH¢14,964,422.77,
approximately ¢150 billion old Ghana cedis which shocking disappeared from
the service’s coffers without any trace.
The amount, according to the audit report, was released by the Director of
Finance at the Judicial Service, Mr. Prosper Adeti and his Deputy Mr.
Abdulai Issah together with the Judicial Secretary, Justice Alex
Poku-Acheampong as payment for goods, but there are no records to show that
the goods were, indeed, supplied to the service.
The Dollar deposit account titled Judicial Service Subvention accounts was
created for the payment of foreign travels, accommodation, subsistence
allowances.
”Payment vouchers were not prepared to support the cash withdrawals as well
as the transfers from the foreign deposit accounts into the Judicial
Service Subvention accounts”.
The audit report warned the Service to desist from mixing its funds with
that of the deposit accounts.
The queries on the audit findings according to the auditors were not
responded to by the management of the Judicial Service.
Audit report has led to both Mr. Adeti and Mr. Issah proceeding on an
interdiction over their various financial offences and replaced by one Mr.
Emmanuel Mammara from the Controller and Accountant General’s Department,
however, Justice Poku-Acheampong who, together with two others, handled the
financial and administrative matter of the service is still at post.
According to the auditors, a review of disbursement procedures at the CJ’s
office disclosed that direct cheques were issued for payment, totaling the
said amount in respect of goods and services provided to the Judiciary, for
which the Director of Finance made payments but without the preparation of
payment vouchers.
The audit report stated that no certification was provided by the Director
of Finance in accordance with section 41 (2a) of Financial Administration
law (Act-644) which requires public officers to keep proper records of all
financial transactions and public accounts to be prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.
The report further stated that before payments are effected, a payment
voucher must be prepared and attached with the necessary authorized
documentation properly authorized by the spending officer or his alternate
as well as his signature to make him fully responsible for the propriety of
the payment, but this was not done by the judicial
service.
A breakdown of the payments made without vouchers from the Government of
Ghana (GOG) bursary indicated as follows;
2008 – GH¢1,795,322.42
2008 – GH¢8,375,043.89
2009 – GH¢3, 9197, 429.80
No dates, whatsoever, have been attached
While Internally Generated Funds (IGF) indicated the following
2008 – GH¢696,981.87
2009 – GH¢88,999.19
The audit report revealed that most of the recordings made in the cash book
were not supported by any payment vouchers.
The auditors said their enquires disclosed that cheque stubs were rather
used to record the entries in cashbook, adding “Since there were no
documentation to support the payments made, we could not vouch the
authenticity of the transactions and cannot certify that the amount be
charged against the public accounts”.
According to the report this lapses occurred as a result of the Director of
Finance either not knowing what to do, or due to total disregard of
generally accepted accounting practice, Financial Administration Regulation
(FAR) and lack of supervision by the spending officer.
The report warned that if this practice in the Judiciary is not checked it
could lead to misappropriation and misapplication of state funds.
The audit report further recommended that the spending officer and the
Director of Finance be made to produce the payments vouchers or the amount
be recovered from them as those who signed the cheques for the payment to
be effected.
Other details of the 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.
It said although “section 1(b) of the 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.
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,
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 the service
could not be relied upon in the preparation of a financial statement of the
service.
The auditors again noted that lack of proper supervision by the Director of
Finance contributed to the lapses in the audit, which was carried 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.
