The recent controversy over the tabling of Pakistan’s 2024–25 audit reports triggered a crucial debate about the relationship between parliament and the auditor general and the overall relevance of government audit in the context of accountability in the country.
There is a genuine need to create a better understanding between the Parliament and the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) of Pakistan to ensure a robust parliamentary oversight mechanism in the country. The recent row was not just an isolated lapse of procedure, but a revealing incident that highlighted a deeper challenge: how to ensure trust and coordination between the very institutions designed to protect the integrity of public finances.
The episode raised a fundamental question: how can democratic oversight function effectively when the key players like parliament and the auditor general are not aligned? This lack of alignment is not merely a theoretical concern but an urgent issue that must be addressed for the effective functioning of our democratic oversight dispensation.
Parliamentary oversight is the lifeblood of accountability in any democracy. Like any Westminster democracy, the office of the auditor general provides support to parliament for legislative oversight of public expenditure. In Pakistan, Article 171 of the constitution obliges the auditor general to submit annual audit reports to the president, who then causes them to be laid before both houses of parliament. These reports are then taken up by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which scrutinises government expenditure and holds ministries accountable for waste, mismanagement or irregularities. When such oversight falters, the result is not only institutional friction but also erosion of public confidence in the state’s ability to safeguard its own financial integrity.
Historically, parliament and the auditor general’s office have been considered strategic partners. Yet, the recent episode suggests that this partnership is under strain. The haste in uploading reports online before their formal tabling only deepened perceptions of institutional disregard (in this case, parliament). This mistrust is troubling because parliament and the auditor general are meant to complement each other, not compete. Without parliament’s scrutiny, audit reports remain technical documents gathering dust on shelves.
Beyond procedural lapses, there is also a broader issue involved that is about the quality and focus of audit reporting. Many PAC members, civil servants and journalists argue that the auditor general’s reports often focus on minor procedural lapses rather than strategic and critical issues of the economy. For instance, a misplaced receipt or a minor deviation from procurement rules may be highlighted, monetized and portrayed as a ‘loss to the exchequer’. The sheer scale of such figures can appear alarming, but they do not always reflect deeper governance failures and issues.
This ‘compliance trap’ creates two problems. First, it overwhelms parliament with technical minutiae, making it difficult for PAC members to focus on issues of strategic importance. Second, it risks eroding public trust when sensationalised figures dominate headlines without adequate context.
The Public Finance Management (PFM) Act of 2019 envisioned a stronger role for the internal audit system within ministries to address procedural and compliance matters. This Act aimed to enhance the effectiveness of the auditor general’s office by shifting its focus from low-value compliance matters to higher-level performance, thematic and impact audits. These performance and thematic audits would not just ask ‘was the money spent correctly?’ but also ‘was it spent wisely?’ This shift in focus could have been a significant step towards addressing the issues of the 'compliance trap'. However, the government has still not established an efficient internal audit system in the ministries and departments.
Around the world, SAIs are evolving and they are shifting the focus from rule-based compliance checks to performance and thematic audits. These reports focus whether government programs deliver results, whether social safety nets reach the vulnerable, or whether climate change funds are spent effectively.
The Department of the Auditor General had recognised the global shift in audit practices. Since 2019-20, an ongoing reform agenda has been implemented to facilitate the organisational transition to adopt emerging trends in public sector auditing. The SAI reorganised itself to address the crucial issues of sectors like climate change, power, social protection and IT-enabled auditing. These reforms include the introduction of the Audit Management Information System (AMIS), a step towards modernising audit practices, along with the development of modern auditing skills. However, these reforms need acceleration.
The environment in which audits are conducted is undergoing rapid transformation. Digital transactions, artificial intelligence and Big Data are transforming how governments operate and how they should be scrutinised. Citizens today expect real-time accountability, not just annual reports buried in technical language. If Pakistan’s audit institution fails to realign with these technological realities, it runs the risk of losing relevance. But technology is not a magic bullet. It must be combined with stronger institutional trust and human capacity. Auditors need training in data-driven methods. Parliamentarians need support staff who can interpret complex reports.
The recent controversy has made one lesson very clear: trust between parliament and the auditor general must be rebuilt if oversight is to be effective. That calls for a culture of communication and mutual respect. First, there must be clarity in how audit reports are transmitted and presented. When reports bypass established channels or appear online before their formal tabling, suspicion naturally arises. Clear communication protocols can prevent misunderstandings and reinforce the credibility of the process.
At the same time, parliament itself needs to strengthen its ability to engage with audit findings. The Public Accounts Committee is the main forum for scrutiny, yet many of its members lack the technical support needed to interpret complex reports. A dedicated secretariat equipped with budget analysts and audit professionals could give parliamentarians the expertise they need to ask sharper questions and hold the executive to account.
The auditor general’s office, for its part, must also evolve. Instead of devoting most of its attention to minor procedural lapses, it should focus on performance audits that examine whether government programmes are delivering real results. This shift would align audit priorities with the issues that most affect citizens’ daily lives, making oversight more relevant and effective.
Mutual understanding can also be fostered through regular dialogue and training. When parliamentarians and auditors meet not only across the table during hearings but also in workshops and policy discussions, they begin to see each other as partners. Technology, too, can serve as a bridge. Systems like AMIS can make reports more accessible, timely and user-friendly for lawmakers. In short, rebuilding trust will require both sides to step closer – parliament by investing in its own capacity and the auditor general by modernising its practices and methods.
Oversight is about protecting the public interest. When parliament and the Auditor General work in harmony, citizens gain confidence that their voices – and their tax rupees – matter. When mistrust prevails, accountability weakens and space opens for inefficiency or corruption. The recent audit row should therefore not be dismissed as a passing embarrassment. It should be seen as a reminder that institutions must evolve, coordinate and adapt to new realities. Oversight is the bridge between the people and their government. And like any bridge, it must be built on strong foundations, regularly maintained and capable of bearing the weight of public expectations.
The writer is a former auditor general of Pakistan.
