Rf 127 million spent by Defence Ministry against regulations: Audit Report

The Audit Office has said that the Ministry of Defence and National Security has spent Rf 127 million against the public finance regulation.

The Audit Report of Defence Ministry 2010 published yesterday said that Rf 127,096,018 was spent against regulations and in addition to Rf 542,609,888, the Ministry’s approved budget for 2010.

The Audit report notes that the amounts spend against the regulations were provided the Ministry’s special budget and the contingency amount included in the Ministry’s budget.

The report said that Rf 1,476,130 was spent on travel abroad in 2010. However, as no ‘travel reports’ were submitted as obligated by regulations, it is not possible to confirm that this money was spent in the interest of the state.

Rf 18,165,153 was spent on the purchase of assets in 2010, however no records were kept in accordance with regulations.

In addition, as no voucher registry was maintained as obligated by article 8 of chapter 6 of the public finance regulation, it is not possible to confirm that all expenditures were included in the annual financial statement.

Other things noted by the Auditor General included the utilisation of Rf 26.47 million for general office expenses, taken from the contingency amount included in the approved budget.

The Auditor General also noted the decrease in state income by Rf 3,980,402 at the end of 2010 due to the non-repayment of loans granted to 45 employees of the Ministry since 1980. No legal action has been taken against these employees.

Other cases noted in the Audit report include a boat attained for use by the Ministry in 2001, but remained unused at the end of 2010; and the fact that people who are no longer employed at MNDF continue to live in the accommodation provided for its employees.

The Audit Report made recommendations to investigate these issues, and to return the flats to their rightful owners.

The Report which noted several expenses made against regulations, stated the failure to include several essential components such as salaries in the 2010 budget as a reason for overspending. It also noted that the expenditure on administrative expenses such as electricity and water were much higher than estimated in the budget.