SAM'S SENSE: Funds accountability- please explain

• The Controller raised concern about the government increasingly establishing special funds that appear to operate outside the regular framework of checks and balances.

Last week, the Controller of Budget, Dr. Margaret Nyakang’o, raised critical questions about the accountability and transparency of various government agencies in the deployment of public resources. She also eloquently explained, step by step, how public finance is administered through a primary document called a budget, generated by government, whether national or county.

The architecture created by the Constitution intended public finance to be overseen almost in real time, with regular reports on how government was performing. But towards the end of the interview, the Controller raised concern about the government increasingly establishing special funds that appear to operate outside the regular framework of checks and balances.

She particularly pointed to growing funds such as the National Infrastructure Fund, Sovereign Wealth Fund, Social Health Insurance Fund, Primary Healthcare Fund and Affordable Housing Levy Fund, among others, saying they were slowly but surely departing from the watch of the Constitution.

Over the past week, many have expressed their opinions. A significant number of ordinary citizens are concerned that we are gradually losing sight of resources generated by the same people. Then there are those in government who have described Nyakang’o’s views as a misrepresentation of reality.

Some, including Cabinet Secretaries, have argued that the Controller should have no issue with the funds because they have their own establishing legislation, which provides for oversight by Parliament and the Auditor-General.

Perhaps, fair enough.

But there is something the Controller is saying.

You see, for the last 13 years, the Office of the Controller of Budget has consistently published reports on budget implementation every three months. Based on those reports, the public gets to know where their money is going. The respective user departments also receive reviews indicating where they could be going wrong, with an opportunity to correct things before it is too late.

Some heed the recommendations. Others ignore them.

Eventually, it takes the Auditor-General to conduct a deeper examination of the financial statements, assessing expenditure and weighing whether there has been value for money.

And the Auditor-General has consistently supplied Parliament with reports on each government agency. Only that sometimes, or rather most times, politicians sitting in Parliament decide to tear apart reports by the Auditor-General, especially those touching on funds where MPs have an interest.

A case in point is the National Government Constituencies Development Fund, NG-CDF.

Still, the reports remain despite the arguments by parliamentarians.

Back to the interview, the Controller raised an important point: that there needs to be an independent observer for each of these funds, preparing reports on budget implementation.

Not an administrator. Let me explain.

For nearly two years now, the country has been operating under a new dispensation of health insurance. Call it SHIF, under the Social Health Authority.

Initially, SHA would publish reports showing claims submitted by health facilities and how much had been settled. It would go further and indicate flagged claims and those under investigation for possible fraud.

And then scandalous transactions emerged.

While the commencement of investigations was announced publicly, the details were taken away. Today, that record is no longer publicly available. It is impossible to track SHIF collections and SHIF claims payments on the SHA website.

You can only do so for your health facility if you are an administrator.

What we now find are isolated pronouncements that SHA has paid out so much money over a certain period, without an opportunity for the public to independently verify those figures.

And yes, the law provides for oversight by Parliament and the Auditor-General.

For now, though, the general public remains in darkness.

Is this the constitutional standard required of such funds?

If the answer is yes, then the Controller of Budget should take back her words.

But if the answer is no, perhaps those opposed to the Controller’s supposed overreach should sit down and explain.

Explain how exactly the removal or hiding of data advances transparency and accountability.

And so, let us have a debate.

Devoid of political outbursts, because in public finance, there can only be details. A level of detail that can only be understood when people talk to one another, seeking sense, devoid of noise and contempt for independent institutions.

That’s my sense.