South Sudan auditor flags spending of IMF funds

The funding was part of the emergency funding through the IMF’s Rapid Credit Facility-Food Shock Window (RCF-FSW) received in January 2023 to bolster Juba’s dwindling foreign exchange reserves and address the deepening humanitarian crisis occasioned by flooding, falling oil production, and disruption of global supply chains as a result of the Ukraine-Russia war.

The IMF funds constituted just over one percent of South Sudan’s total budget for the 2022–2023 fiscal year, estimated at SSP 1.39 trillion ($10.67 billion).

South Sudan applied for and negotiated emergency financing under the Food Shock Window with the IMF. The fund’s board approved SDR86.1 million ($114.38 million) on January 19, 2023, and disbursed it four days later.

Food Shock Window:

To mitigate the impact of food prices and climate shock on vulnerable groups, $15 million from the disbursement was to be transferred to the World Food Programme, $5 million to the International Organization for Migration and the remainder to finance the ministries of General education, instruction, and health through conditional transfers in line with the allocations made in the 2022–2023 budget.

Auditor-General Steven Kiliona Wondu, in his Compliance Audit Report dated April 3, 2024, outlines irregular award of tenders to unqualified bidders, single-sourcing in the award of procurement contracts, irregular disbursement of funds, irregular advance payments to contractors, implementation of projects not budgeted for and failure to withhold tax on payments made to contractors.

“Based on the audit procedures performed, the disbursement and utilisation of the emergency funding received by the government through the Food Shock Window of the Rapid Credit Facility of the IMF were not in compliance, in all material respects, with the Letter of Intent and the identified audit criteria,” Mr. Wondu said.

The funding was both for balance of payments support and budget support to finance the expected fiscal deficit estimated at SSP54 billion (five percent of GDP) in the 2022–2023 fiscal year.

Of the total facility, 60 percent ($68.62 million) was to be made on loan by the Bank of South Sudan to the government under the same terms as obtained from the IMF.

The Auditor-General wants the Finance Ministry to provide full accountability for the funds allocated to budget support and that all revenues and expenditures of the government be on budget and according to the approvals of the National Assembly.

He further wants all government payments to be processed through an integrated financial management information system (Ifmis) to improve transparency.

The central bank did not answer our email.

An IMF spokesperson said that they “consider that the allocations made to the key items in the budget (health and education) to be in line with the LOI, as were the allocations to the World Food Programme, the International Organisation for Migration, and the resources used by the central bank for reserves.”

“We have also taken note, however, of the reporting of unused balances against the various budget allocations, and, in partnership with the authorities, we are seeking to establish the appropriate steps to be taken to ensure that these remaining balances are used in line with the agreement.”

Explanations:

The report shows that evidence of the expenditure of $3 million by the South Sudan Revenue Authority was not available for audit, even though the statement for the bank account held by the Ministry of Finance and Planning at the Bank of South Sudan reflected a withdrawal of the amount on July 18, 2023.

“The explanation and the supporting documents for the withdrawal were not provided. In addition, the MOFP management explained in their responses to the Management Letter that the funds would be refunded if the utilisation was confirmed to be irregular. However, no evidence of the refund was provided for the audit,” says the Auditor-General.

The audit cites a discrepancy of $1 million in the Ministry of Health, where a financial statement reflected payments of $8.99 million to the ministry, compared to the budgeted $10 million.

“There is a variance of $1,001,314, which was not explained, nor was any evidence provided to confirm the existence of the funds,” the report says.

The Auditor-General notes that while South Sudan’s Taxation Act (2009) requires government institutions that make contract payments to contractors to withhold tax at the time of payment, the Ministry of Finance and Planning did not withhold any tax from payments amounting to $8.99 million made to four suppliers of medicines and medical supplies.

Also, health ministry officers procured medicines and medical supplies valued at $9.29 million without following due process, contrary to the Public Finance Management Act (2011), which provides that, where applicable, loan proceeds shall be utilised in accordance with the government procurement applicable law to public procurement.

“In the circumstances, it could not be confirmed that the procurement was in accordance with the identified needs for medicines and medical supplies in the country and based on the approved budget,” the report says.

The MoH engaged four contractors for the supply of medicines and medical supplies worth $9.29 million through single sourcing without evidence of the exceptional circumstances justifying single-sourcing and for compliance with the rules as provided by the PFM law.

In another instance, he cites payments to suppliers of medicines and medical supplies made on July 13, 2023, but supplies were delivered between November 2023 and February 2024, and some were yet to be delivered in March 2024.

According to Section 30(5)(b) of the PFMA Act, 2011, where payment is to be made before the completion of the work, delivery of the goods, or rendering of the service, accounting officers should certify that the payment is in accordance with the contract and a payment guarantee or the appropriate security has been given in the name of the government to secure due performance of the contracts.

Section 7 of the contract signed between the ministry and the suppliers provides that payments shall be made upon the delivery of the supplies and upon submission of the transport documents, bill of lading, shipment certificate, and invoice for the delivered goods.

The report also reveals the absence of the verification and acceptance committee reports, making it difficult to ascertain the correct quantity of the medicines and medical supplies received and that the medicines and supplies met the specifications and standards defined in the contract.

The auditor says the Ministry of General Education and Instruction made advance payments amounting to $2.93 million to 13 contractors, but these were not provided for in the signed contracts.

It also implemented projects such as the construction/renovation of schools not planned for in the budget, work plan, or procurement plan.

The audit shows that eight contractors were awarded even though the bids submitted did not satisfy the criteria for legal compliance.

Eight contractors whose bids did not meet the technical evaluation criteria and another three whose technical capacity was not evaluated were awarded contracts.

“The anomalies constitute procurement irregularities. In addition, the contractors engaged may not have the capacity to deliver, leading to delayed performance, poor workmanship, stalled projects, and losses,” the report says.

“Not withholding tax is not only illegal but may also hinder revenue collection by the government,” the Auditor-General says.