Tag: Forum of Jurisdictional SAIs

Since the SAI Performance Measurement Framework (SAI PMF) was introduced in 2010, an impressive 96 SAIs have completed a SAI PMF assessment. While SAI PMF has become an established tool among SAIs globally, uptake so far has been more limited among SAIs with jurisdictional competencies, with only 12 being jurisdictional-model SAIs out of the 96.  

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) have a vital role for public sector accountability, integrity, and transparency. To fulfill their role and build trust between the organs of the state and society, SAIs need to be independent. 

SAI Independence may be understood as the ability of a Supreme Audit Institution to operate autonomously of the government, without undue influence and control. It is considered a fundamental condition for SAIs to effectively carry out their mandate. The INTOSAI Mexico Declaration on SAI Independence identifies eight conditions, known as the pillars of independence, as the benchmark against which the independence of an SAI can be assessed.

The 7th Forum of Jurisdictional Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs), held in Bangkok on 16-17 October 2023, was inaugurated with an opening ceremony that featured a series of distinguished speakers, underscoring the global significance and collaborative spirit of the event. General Chanathap Indamra, the President of the State Audit Commission of Thailand and Chairman of the ASOSAI, extended a warm welcome to participants, setting a tone of camaraderie and shared purpose for the proceedings. Mr. Jean Yves Bertucci, the President of the Chamber of Litigation of the French Court of Accounts, contributed his insights, further enriching the dialogue with perspectives from Forum of Jurisdictional SAIs.

The concept of this article, “Duties and Powers of the State Audit Commission of Thailand to Order an Administrative Penalty” was inspired by reflections upon a similar French model. Professor Dr. Orapin Phonsuwan Sabyeroop wrote an article titled “Control of Budget Enforcement and Fiscal Administration by Judicial Bodies in the French Public Finance System” after completing her Ph.D. at the University of Paris II. Thailand adopted this concept, but adjusted it to fit the country’s context at the time. Due to the inability to establish a court quickly and timely, Thailand initially adopted the model of a board, or the Board of Audit, to enforce these principles before developing a court system similar to France’s in the future. 

The INTOSAI-P 50 document outlines twelve principles for the jurisdictional activities of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) empowered with the corresponding mandate, which allows them to rule on the liability of individuals accountable by law in case of irregularities or mismanagement.

The State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia (SAI Latvia) is an independent and collegial supreme audit institution (SAI) with its mandate specified in the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. Specifically, SAI Latvia has the mandate to notify public entities of the findings on public finance management which pertain to them, and to notify law enforcement authorities of violations of legal provisions detected during an audit. However, SAI Latvia does not have the right to make decisions on punishing officials who commit unlawful actions.

SAIs with jurisdictional powers are often misunderstood, and the value of their specific features is generally not fully appreciated. A SAI has jurisdictional powers when it has received the legal mandate to sanction a person on the grounds of an irregularity or damage, related to the use of public funds under the SAI’s jurisdiction and which can be imputed to that person, following contradictory-adversal proceedings.

At its General Assembly in Lisbon, Portugal in September 2021, the Forum of Jurisdictional SAIs adopted a set of guidelines designed to publicize and promote the exercise of jurisdictional and contentious missions by SAIs vested with this competence. These guidelines provide and illustrate in very concrete terms the frame of reference for this exercise in conditions of independence, objectivity or neutrality, legal rigor, public interest and fairness in line with the highest international standards.

The INTOSAI Core Principles are at the pinnacle of INTOSAI’s professional pronouncements, just behind the Lima and Mexico Declarations, which represent the “Magna Carta” of external government auditing and define the conditions for its independent and effective functioning. To date in 2024, there are three: one is devoted to the value and benefits that SAIs bring to citizens (INTOSAI-P 12), another to transparency and accountability (INTOSAI-P 20), and the third sets out the 12 principles that should guide the actions of SAIs with jurisdictional powers, in the exercise of their functions.

There are three main models of SAIs in the world, and several variants. They have a very long history, dating back in some cases to the Middle Ages, but all three were renewed and developed between the 18th century and the beginning of the following century, when modern states were established.

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) with jurisdictional functions from around the world make up approximately a quarter of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) membership. According to Pompe et. Al (2022), these SAIs not only audit, but also assume crucial roles in the adjudication and management of public funds. SAIs with jurisdictional functions have become a beacon of transparency and accountability, as they conduct reviews of accounts, and impose sanctions upon detecting poor management or financial irregularities in government administration. 

About 25% of all supreme audit institutions (SAIs) represented in INTOSAI undertake jurisdictional activities. Most of them are found in the French-speaking, Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking areas of the world. But, it’s an attractive model that extends beyond these linguistic and cultural spheres: Latvia, South Africa and Thailand have recently equipped their SAIs with a new competence and an appropriate organization to sanction the misuse of public money. Others, like Indonesia or Vietnam, are willing to obtain new jurisdictional powers or similar functions. This is also a model that can evolve: The French legislator has just radically reformed the system of liability for public managers, which had been in force for decades.