| SAM'S SENSE | FUNDS ACCOUNTABILITY: PLEASE EXPLAIN

Last week the controller of budget Dr. Margaret Nyakang’o raised critical questions as to the accountability and transparency of various government agencies in deployment of resources. And she eloquently explained the step-by-step of how public finance is administered following a primary document called a budget, generated by a government, be it national or county. The architecture that is the constitution intended public finance to be over sighted in an almost real-time style with regular reports of how the government was doing. And then at the end, the controller told how concerning it was becoming with the government increasingly establishing special funds that are outside the regular framework of checks and balances. She particularly explained that the growing funds such as the national infrastructure fund, sovereign wealth fund, social health insurance fund, primary healthcare fund, affordable housing levy fund and more were slowly but surely departing from the watch of the constitution. Now, over the last one-week, many have expressed their opinions. A significant number of regular citizens concerned that we are gradually losing sight of resources that are generated by the same people. And then there are those in government who have described Nyakang’o’s views as a misrepresentation of reality. Some including cabinet secretaries have explained that the controller should have no issue, given that the said special funds have their own establishing legislation that donates oversight to 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 always published reports on budgetary implementation. Every three months without fail. Based on those documents, the public gets to know where their money is going. The respective user departments get a review that advises where they could be going wrong, with an opportunity to correct things before it is too late. Some heed the recommendations, some ignore. Eventually it takes the auditor general to do a deeper dive into the financial statements, weighing the value for money from expenditure. And the auditor has consistently supplied parliament with reports of each government agency. Only that some times, rather most times, politicians who sit in parliament decide to tear apart reports of the auditor general especially those touching on funds where MPs bear an interest. Case in point, NG-CDF reports. 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 the funds, who prepares reports about budgetary implementation. Not an administrator. Let me explain. For nearly two years now, the country has been on a new dispensation of health insurance. Call it SHIF under the social health authority. Initially, SHA would publish reports of claims from health facilities and how much had been settled. They would go to the extent of indicating flagged claims, and those that were being investigated for possible fraud. And then scandalous transactions emerged. And while investigation commencement was announced in public, the details were taken away. Today, that record is no longer public. 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 find are isolated pronouncements that SHA has paid out so much money over so long a period; without a chance of verification. And yes, the law provides 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 supposed controller’s overreach should sit down and explain. Explain how exactly the action of hiding data drives transparency and accountability. And so, let’s 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 each other, seeking sense, devoid of noise and contempt for independent institutions. That’s my sense tonight.