The Global Project: Rethinking SAI Independence

Authors: Tuzla Lathiff (OECD) and Benjamin Fuentes (IDI)

Amid today’s complex political climate, low public trust in institutions, and tighter government budgets, the independence of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) becomes more relevant than ever in ensuring that governments manage public funds openly, efficiently and for the benefit of citizens. However, both the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) and the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI) have found that SAIs face major – and sometimes increasing – obstacles. These challenges are not just legal, but also practical—especially in their relationships with executive and legislative branches.

To operate effectively and fulfil their mandate, the independence of SAIs is key. Since the 2007 adoption of the Mexico Declaration on SAI Independence by INTOSAI, many countries have taken steps to formally protect SAIs from outside influence. But in an increasingly complex environment, where public discourse can be influence by rapid information flows and social media, formal protections alone may not be enough.

The Global Project on SAI Independence, led jointly by the OECD and IDI, aims to bring new insights into these challenges. The project looks beyond legal frameworks to understand the informal, political, and institutional realities that shape SAI independence in practice. The goal is to provide guidance on how the principles of the Mexico Declaration are applied and protected in real-world contexts.

IDI–OECD Joint Report

After nearly two years of planning, research, consultations, and data collection, the OECD and IDI are preparing a joint report to be finalised in 2026. The report will examine the real-life challenges SAIs face in working with the executive and legislative branches, highlighting both challenges, good practices and informal dynamics. 

It will showcase effective practices that have contributed to SAIs’ independence, effectiveness and impact despite political or financial pressures, and identify success factors—such as ways to maintain constructive engagement with institutional actors while protecting institutional autonomy. These findings are expected to support future collaboration between international partners and national institutions and help promote better environments for SAIs to operate independently. While designed primarily for SAIs, the report may also offer valuable lessons for other independent oversight bodies facing similar challenges, with content grounded in the INTOSAI community’s values and the principles of the Mexico Declaration.

In the lead-up to its release, IDI and OECD will stay closely engaged with the INTOSAI community to ensure the findings are widely shared and support meaningful follow-up at global and national levels.

Initial High-Level Findings from the Data Collection

Preliminary analysis of the collected data indicates several recurring patterns across regions. These reflect the contexts in which Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) operate, particularly in relation to political dynamics, stakeholder expectations, and their interactions with the executive, legislative, and judiciary.

These observations are based on the perspectives and experiences reported through the data collection process and are presented here to inform further discussion and analysis.

Political Dynamics

According to data gathered from participating SAIs, many report operating in more fluid and fast-changing political environments than in 2007, when the Mexico Declaration principles were adopted. Respondents highlighted that social media increasingly influences public narratives and perceptions. Within this context, the data suggest that legal safeguards alone may not be sufficient to protect SAI independence; credibility and resilience to informal pressures were identified as increasingly important.

Expectations on SAIs

Data indicates that SAIs are frequently expected to fill accountability gaps where other institutions, such as parliaments or internal audit bodies, face capacity and/or capability constraints. In some instances, respondents noted that SAIs are taking on additional responsibilities, including in areas related to integrity or anti-corruption initiatives. While this can reflect strong confidence in SAIs, the data also points to concerns about resource strain and the potential impact on independence.

Executive Relations

Compared with the context around 2007, the data shows that it can now be more challenging for SAIs to justify institutional arrangements such as distinct budgetary or administrative frameworks, particularly in discussions with ministries of finance or executive authorities. These dynamics were reported as influencing how SAIs negotiate their operational autonomy.

Legislative Relations

While the Mexico Declaration characterised parliaments as natural allies of SAIs, data from several regions suggest that this relationship may be under strain. Contributing factors identified in the data include:

Limited Parliamentary Capacity

Respondents noted that many parliaments lack sufficient expertise or resources to use audit reports effectively in oversight activities.

Political Polarisation

Several SAIs reported that heightened polarisation can delay appointments or legal reforms, and may lead to audit findings being interpreted through a political lens rather than fostering policy debate.

Complex Legal Frameworks

Data reveal that overlapping or ambiguous procedures for report publication or follow-up can create uncertainty, sometimes leading to different interpretations between SAIs and parliaments.

Power Imbalance

Even where laws appear balanced, respondents observed that the executive often wields more influence and resources, which can affect SAIs’ budgetary independence and leadership appointments.

Judiciary

Although the judiciary was not a focus of the Mexico Declaration, the data suggest that it plays a growing role in shaping SAI independence, especially through constitutional and legal interpretations. However, some respondents expressed concern about the consistency and independence of judicial decisions in certain contexts, highlighting the importance of a stable and impartial legal environment for safeguarding SAI autonomy.

Emerging Lessons from the Data

The findings from this initial phase of data collection reaffirm several established ideas while also offering new perspectives on how SAI independence functions in practice.

Independence Does Not Mean Isolation

Respondents emphasised that SAIs cannot defend their independence alone. Partnerships with development partners, civil society, academia, global networks, parliaments, and citizens were seen as important for raising awareness and reinforcing the value of independent external audit.

Informal Factors Matter

The data highlight that informal norms and practices often complement formal legal frameworks. Respondents noted that SAI legislation is frequently shaped by periods of political change or reform, and when laws become outdated, informal mechanisms can emerge to fill the gaps. These informal dynamics are significant and should be acknowledged when assessing or strengthening SAI independence.

Independence Is Linked to Value and Relevance

Across regions, the data suggest that independence and relevance are closely connected. Respondents observed that public and institutional trust in SAIs can reinforce their independence. SAIs that demonstrate transparency, integrity, and accountability in their own operations are seen as more credible and better positioned to safeguard their autonomy. In this sense, legitimacy and trust are integral components of institutional independence.

The Global Project and the XXV INCOSAI

In addition to the high-level findings and insights outlined above, the IDI–OECD presented an informative summary of the Global Project at the XXV INTOSAI Congress in Egypt. This summary included key results related to each of the Mexico Declaration principles, offering an overview of the project’s implementation, scope, and insights.

The IDI–OECD side event held during the XXV INCOSAI marked the first occasion where the results of the Global Project were publicly presented. The session was dynamic and participatory, with valuable contributions from global project partners and stakeholders. 

---

Additional Information

Data Collection Process

Methodology

With guidance from experts at the U.S. GAO and using a conceptual framework developed by the University of Oslo, the OECD and IDI used an exploratory research approach. The IDI OECD report will benefit from input from four main sources of information:

1. Country Visits
2. Regional Workshops
3. SAI Questionnaires
4. Stakeholder Surveys

The methodology focuses on informal aspects such as trust, perceptions, expectations, and organizational culture—factors that are often missed in formal reviews. During country visits, semi-structured interviews were held using open-ended questions. The same approach was used in regional workshops to encourage diverse viewpoints. Questionnaires also included open-ended prompts to allow for deeper reflection.

Participants were informed that their responses would remain anonymous—no names, institutions, or other identifiers would be linked to their comments. This was essential to create a safe space for open, honest conversations, given the sensitive nature of the topic.

Brief description of activities

• Country Visits
  Seven countries were visited: Indonesia (ASOSAI), Jamaica (CAROSAI), Jordan (ARABOSAI), Liberia (AFROSAI-E), Morocco (AFROSAI and ARABOSAI), Paraguay (OLACEFS), and Spain (EUROSAI). Over 90 interviews were conducted with auditors, civil servants, parliamentarians, and civil society representatives. These visits gave in-depth insight into how formal rules work—or don’t—in practice.

• Regional Workshops
  Workshops were held in Djibouti (CREFIAF), Jordan (ARABOSAI), New Caledonia (PASAI), and the Philippines (ASOSAI). These brought together SAIs from across regions to share experiences and validate findings. 

• SAI Questionnaires
  In partnership with the U.S. GAO, a detailed questionnaire was sent to SAIs of OECD countries and 21 non-OECD countries. It explored legal protections, experiences of interference, institutional strengths, and areas needing improvement.

• Stakeholder Surveys
  Surveys were also sent to external stakeholders, including:

• Members of the OECD Parliamentary Network
• The OECD Central Harmonisation Function
• Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), through a partnership with the World Justice Project (WJP). More than 1,700 responses from legal experts across 80 countries were collected through the WJP network, offering valuable insights into perceptions and institutional dynamics.

Partnering with Relevant Actors

The Global Project on SAI Independence has brought together a diverse group of partners to support its planning, design, and implementation. These partnerships have been instrumental in shaping the project’s direction and ensuring its alignment with international standards and good practices.

The INTOSAI General Secretariat has played a key role in emphasizing the continued relevance of the Mexico Declaration, while also encouraging the exploration of innovative, complementary approaches to strengthen SAI independence.

The INTOSAI Policy, Finance, and Administration Committee (PFAC) has supported the project through two of its member institutions:

• The General Court of Audit of Saudi Arabia, which provided financial resources and technical expertise for the in-country visits.

• The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which contributed to the project’s overall design and the development of its data collection methodology.

The Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) has offered critical support by providing strategic input, technical guidance, and financial resources.

From the outset, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have also played important roles, ensuring that the project is aligned with broader efforts to improve public financial management and promote fiscal transparency.