In the ongoing saga over the audit of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML) agreement, Bright Simons, Vice President of IMANI Africa, has urged auditing firm KPMG to decline the assignment.
Simons argued that the serious nature of the allegations, including procurement abuses and technological concerns, necessitates an in-depth investigation by independent state bodies like the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ).
He contended that KPMG lacks the requisite powers and independence for such a probe.
“The terms of reference do not extend to a forensic examination of the procurement abuses (single sourcing of an unqualified entity) nor of the technology system purported to have been created for the job, etc. A detailed concurrent review by the OSP & CHRAJ is warranted.
Bright Simons
“KPMG’s practice oversight bosses should prudently preserve the firm’s reputation & drop this assignment. This issue is a hot political potato right now. The nature of the allegations requires an IN-DEPTH look by state bodies with the RIGHT POWERS & INDEPENDENCE. KPMG has neither.”
Bright Simons
Adding to the controversy, Benjamin Boakye, Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP), highlighted the ethical concerns surrounding KPMG’s involvement. Boakye asserts that being a client of GRA, KPMG faces a conflict of interest, making it unethical to audit the GRA-SML agreement. The integrity of KPMG, he argued, is compromised by its ties to GRA and its investigation into one of its major portfolios.
“KPMG has its integrity at stake if it accepts this job. It is a client of GRA and its investigation against the leaders of one of its large portfolios is exceedingly suspicious. Simply unethical.”
Benjamin Boakye
Navigating the Murky Waters
The audit of the agreement between the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML) has become a contentious issue, not only due to the alleged irregularities in the deal but also concerning the choice of the auditing firm and the principles surrounding its engagement. The intersection of “Right Powers,” conflict of interest, and independence in this matter raises profound questions about the credibility and fairness of the audit process.
Benjamin Boakye, ACEP Executive Director
The nature of the allegations against the GRA-SML deal is serious, involving procurement abuses and concerns about the technology system deployed. The call for investigative authorities like the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) reflects a demand for entities with the legal mandate and independence to scrutinize and address potential wrongdoings. This ensures that the investigation is not only thorough but also free from external influence.
ADVERTISEMENT
The involvement of KPMG in the audit has triggered concerns about a potential conflict of interest. The integrity of KPMG is at stake, as its ability to maintain objectivity and impartiality may be compromised by its financial ties to the GRA. To preserve the ethical standards of the auditing profession, stakeholders argue that KPMG should recuse itself from the assignment.
Independence is a cornerstone of auditing standards, ensuring that auditors can perform their duties objectively and without bias. In the case of the GRA-SML deal, the question of KPMG’s independence arises due to its financial relationship with the GRA. The perception of independence is crucial for the public’s confidence in the audit findings. If there is any doubt about the auditor’s ability to act independently, it could undermine the credibility of the entire audit process.
As stakeholders navigate these murky waters, the principles guiding the audit process will play a pivotal role in determining the legitimacy and public trust in the final audit report.
