Principal Auditor and divisional head for public enterprises at the Audit Service has said that it is wrong to contact a third party without the consent of the client.
Abubakar Amara who said he has worked for the audit service for about 11 years and previously headed the specialized audit department of the institution is the 2nd state witness in the Tribunal on the Auditor General Lara Taylor Pearce and her deputy Tamba Momoh.
The Attorney General on 3rd June 2022 filed a case of professional misconduct, conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality and third party confirmation against the suspended Auditor General and her Deputy.
REPORT
Led by principal State Lawyer Ahmed James Maxwell Bockarie, Abubakarr told the tribunal on Monday 30th October that he was involved in the 2011-2012, 2016 and 2017 audit of the Office of the President.
The entire processes of audit he said starts from pre planning and planning during which an engagement letter is sent to the client with the responsibilities and expectations of both parties clearly outlined and the execution stage which is the field work, reporting and finally follow up.
Whenever documents are received during an audit process, Abubakarr said that before starting the process, the information is logged and both the audit service and the client will sign.
Every audit he said has a separate work file and that such files are kept in a cabinet at the audit service.
Ask whether he refers to his supervisor should he as an auditor require a third party confirmation the witness said yes but added that he hasn’t experienced where a supervisor would contact a third party without his involvement because it’s a team work.
He said it’s not the normal process for a supervisor to contact a third party.
As part of his roles he said include initiate specific audit processes by selection of individuals for deployment.
During cross examination with Roland Wright, Lawyer for Lara Taylor Pearce asked Abubakar Amara said that whiles his team is in the field, it is only the relevant documents among those that are logged that form part of the production of their draft report.
He stated further that any document after the draft report could be logged but will not form part of the draft report anyway.
If they require a third party confirmation, the witness said he will be informed and the necessary documentations are done for his supervisor to sign.
Referring to International Audit Standard {IAS 505} Lawyer Wright said its scope is limited to bank balances and ancillary matters. The witness responded in the contrary and said that the said guiding principle is additionally used for contracts and terms of agreements.
Asked whether IAS 505 says that an auditor needs the permission of the auditee before a third party confirmation is carried out, the witness responded in the negative.
Lawyer Wright further put it to the witness that it is IAS 240 that provides for the authentication of documents with a third party.
Abubakarr responded that there’s an internal memo at the audit service which rather makes provision to seek the consent of the client for a third party confirmation.
Roland Wright was trying to establish to the tribunal that no permission is needed from an auditee before a third party confirmation can be carried out in an audit process contrary to the motion filed by the Attorney General.
At that stage of the proceeding, he requested for an adjournment in order to allow the witness provides the internal memo and audit Manuel which he had referenced in his testimony but were not in evidence before the tribunal.
He said his cross examination will be incomplete if such documents which he considered very relevant are not made available.
The witness expressed willingness and readiness to provide the said documents at the next adjourned date of Monday 6th November.