Ok, so now let's do some little education for those who are fair-minded and interested. I'm not purporting to be an auditor or specialist in accounting. No. But my experience as a manager has taught me how auditing is done. There are different kinds of audits.
There're some done to detect fraud which is mostly, called forensic audit. Such audits are very thorough, rigorous, and in such audits, auditors go a step further to verify each claim, test vouchers and sometimes try to compare market prices to establish prudence of expenditure, etc. They simply follow trails of expenditures.
Another form of audit is one that seeks to look at expenditures with supporting records. In this type of audit, the auditor comes to you, you provide him with your expenditure, and then the auditor requests for evidence supporting those expenditures. In such cases, the auditor hardly, in fact, rarely, delves deeper into the evidence. He only wants to be sure whether you spent within budget, and that, your expenditures are backed by records.
In the first instance, ie, forensic audit, it's done when there is reasonable cause to doubt the audited institution or person. Or when an investigation is being carried to establish fraud.
We should ask ourselves, whether the Audit Service under the abled leadership of the Auditor General, whom according to some legal interpretations, is distinct from the Audit Service, was doing a routine audit or forensic audit? Per the facts available, the audit was commissioned by GETFUND under the heading "performance audit". This then appears to be a normal routine audit though a special one. Special because it was requested at the instance of the GETFUND board. In this situation, it's only the uninitiated that would say, the audit should have reached out to the over 3,000 names provided by GETFUND, to verify if indeed, the scholarships were given to them. Absolutely preposterous!
If you know nothing about audits, please keep your confusion to yourself and don't make it public. If all audits are carried out in that manner, ie, cross-checking claims from every vendor, validating every receipt, authenticating every voucher, then audit reports would never be ready in donkey years.
If you have any anger to expend, direct it at the GETFUND. That's where all the names were generated. If the GETFUND board has reasonable suspicion based on the latest developments, they'd cause a forensic audit which would then look at each recipient with a microscopic eye. It is at that point, that, they'd reach out to beneficiaries.
The competence of Domelovo is unparalleled. He knows his job so well. Having worked with World Bank and worked in Zambia, he's a professional enough to know the tiniest tips of his job. Politicians whose interest is all about party affiliation, should, therefore, back off and allow the independent man to do his work. Additionally, NPP should direct their anger at their communication team for allowing the NDC to pull a fast one on them instead of attacking intractable Domelovo.
No auditor starts an audit with that level of inquisition until there's reasonable cause to do so otherwise, the auditor ends up chasing the wind.
The Auditor-General did not cause any publication. The legal suit by the deputy minister was therefore misconceived. According to the law establishing Auditor General's mandate, he's supposed to put every report generated no matter how defective, on his website, periodicals, etc.