Three Misconceptions on the Independence of Supreme Audit Institutions
By Vincent Frigon
Independence is what Supreme Audit Institutions need to fulfill their vital role of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration. Yet it is often jeopardized by political interference. What are the most effective strategies for safeguarding it? Research suggests that we may have some misconceptions about the effectiveness of existing measures in this crucial area.
Misconception #1: Money Will Buy Willingness
Various socioeconomic factors, such as the gross domestic product, can have an impact on the capacity of a government to allocate adequate resources to SAIs. But the assumption that SAI independence relies heavily on a government’s income level is a misconception, according to the World Bank’s Supreme Audit Institutions Independence Index which studied 118 countries. Results indicate that many SAIs in low-income countries outperformed counterparts in richer States and suggest that independence is more a matter of choice and priority.1
Governments with a willingness to strengthen their SAI can enact robust legislation to guarantee its independence, with laws delineating their authority, mandate, and protection from executive or political interference. They allow and encourage this institution to distance itself from the executive, except when necessary for their work, to foster objectivity.
In South Africa, for example, the role of the SAI was embedded in the country’s Constitution since its inception in 1911. When the country’s new Constitution came into effect in 1994, the role and responsibilities of the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) were expanded to enable the institution to fulfill its constitutional mandate. At the same time, the institution “gained independence and was set apart from the public sector, so it is not bound by any public service rules and regulations”, explains AGSA spokesperson Harold Maloka.2 This structural independence empowers the institution to govern itself under its own act, the Public Audit Act (PAA), enhancing its autonomy. According to the World Bank’s index, the AGSA is one of too few SAIs able to enjoy full independence in carrying out their audit mandate.
Misconception #2: Paved Highways are Free of Potholes
Another misconception is that legal independence equates to actual independence. A solid legal framework serves as a highway: it can facilitate a quicker journey, but obstacles—like potholes—may still impede progress. In the day-to-day operations of SAIs, de facto independence can be compromised by political pressure, insufficient funding, or limited access to information. As highlighted in a literature review by the INTOSAI Development Initiative, these institutions may also grapple with issues such as understaffing, the dismissal of their recommendations, or a lack of credibility that hinders their ability to drive meaningful change.3 To effectively fulfill their mission, SAIs rely on support from various stakeholders, including parliament, civil society, and the media. In South Africa, for instance, Parliament supports the AGSA through the Standing Committee on the Auditor-General (SCOAG).
Misconception #3: Independence is Not Compatible with Engagement
There is a misconception among some public institutions regulators that SAIs should be entirely insulated from all stakeholders to mitigate potential political bias. However, fostering balanced engagement with civil society, parliament, and international organizations bolsters both the independence and effectiveness of these institutions. SAIs should not be viewed as adversaries by politicians; rather, they ought to be recognized as impartial allies aimed at enhancing services and programs for citizens through their auditing work. Elected officials can also reap the benefits of this collaboration, provided they refrain from interfering with the audit processes.
To alleviate the perceived threat against governments, SAIs are encouraged to engage more frequently with their stakeholders to clarify roles and responsibilities and to be more transparent about their work. Openness also helps build trust and manage expectations. In South Africa, for example, the AGSA developed its own system to navigate challenges like resistance or non-cooperation from government departments during audits. As Maloka notes, “while there are various parliamentary legislative oversight mechanisms that protect the AGSA in delivering on its mandate, such as the Public Audit Act, 2004 (PAA) and the Standing Committee on the Auditor-General (SCoAG), the AGSA has, over the years, entrenched a cooperative and developmental approach with its auditees.” This approach not only lessens tension but fosters a productive dialogue between auditors and government entities, reinforcing the importance of cooperation in achieving a common goal—effective service delivery to citizens.
Engaging with the media is another crucial method for reinforcing independence. While media reports do not always align with the views of the SAI, they play an essential role in bringing audit findings into the public domain and motivating elected officials to take notice. Public institutions regulators often fear that allowing SAIs to communicate with journalists could jeopardize politicians’ public support, especially if issues of mismanagement become front-page news. However, experienced legislators understand that such reports can also enhance their public standing if they show that they are responsive to concerns and are actively implementing recommendations.
Media coverage is also an indicator of the level of independence of the SAI. This is often the case in South Africa, said expert Herman de Jager. The AGSA “is prepared to let the public know about the maladministration and shortcomings of government institutions, further illustrating that, because of his independence, the Auditor-General does not shy away from confronting state institutions, and the government”4, he wrote.
Vincent Frigon is a communications expert currently working for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. He was working for the INTOSAI Development Initiative in Madagascar, in 2025, when this article was written.
This article was first published in SAI Monitor.
- World Bank. 2021. Supreme Audit Institutions Independence Index: 2021 Global Synthesis Report. Equitable Growth, Finance and Institutions Insight;. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/36001 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. ↩︎
- Email interview with the author. Auditor-General of South Africa. 23 July 2025. Permission to publish the article in INTOSAI Journal granted on 25 September 2025. ↩︎
- INTOSAI Development Initiative. 2021. SAI Independence : Literature Review On Supreme Audit Institution Independence. 17 pages. ↩︎
- De Jager, Herman. Editorial : The Auditor General. Auditing SA. Summer 2006/7. Internet: https://repository.up.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/3c9125f2-f7e9-480f-8f75-c71ea6df53e6/content ↩︎
