Freetown, Sierra Leone. 3rd September 2024

One of our too-few leaders, epitome of class, Lara Taylor-Pearce, bullied Auditor General of Sierra Leone:

Initial comments on the findings in the Tribunal Report on the investigation of Mr. Tamba Momoh fomer Deputy Auditor General, and myself, Mrs. Lara Taylor-Pearce, Auditor General

I have seen and read the report of the Tribunal dated May 2024 which was circulated on social medial on Thursday 29thAugust 2024, and received by my lawyer on that date. My lawyers will give a more detailed response in time. For now, I think it is important that I make the following clarifications.

1. Audit of the Office of the President

Audit Service Sierra Leone carries out three specific types of audits. Financial Statement audits (audit of a set of financial statements presented for audit), Compliance audits (an audit of compliance with the public financial management and other laws) and Performance audits (an audit of the effective, efficient and economic use of public funds). This information was clearly brought out in the Tribunal.

The audit engagement letter for the audit of the Office of the President dated 4th May 2021, was specific to a COMPLIANCE audit using a specific audit standard (ISSAI 4000).This was categorically stated under the objective section of the letter. This letter was tendered in evidence and referred to by the State.

Third party confirmation documents and processes referenced in the Tribunal report, are ONLY specific to the audit of a set of Financial Statements, when confirming the existence or correctness of ACCOUNT balances in those Financial statements. In fact, section A4 of ISA 505/ISSAI 1505 or ISSAI 2505 of the audit standards dealing with audits of account balances in a Financial Statement audit, are very clear. That section states that getting authorisation of the auditee for a third party confirmation of account balances, is NOT mandatory, but is done for encouraging a ready response to the auditor from the third party.

The fact is, the audit of the Office of the President WAS NOT a Financial Statement Audit, therefore a third party confirmation on any ACCOUNT balance was not carried out.

As per the engagement letter, the audit of the Office of the President was a COMPLIANCE audit carried out using ISSAI 4000.Under this standard, documents and records can be referred to third parties for authentication purposes when the need arises as confirmed by three expert defence witnesses. Such authentication allows for DIRECT confirmation in the case of assessing the clarity or authenticity of a document. Public sector audit standards are very clear. The third party confirmation process of account balances which are recorded in a set of Financial statements, is totally different from the process of authenticating audit evidence when seeking clarification for a document provided as audit evidence.

The COMPLIANCE AUDIT of the Office of the President, included the audit of all funds provided to and managed by that office. These funds included all IMPREST directly provided for, and used for specific purposes. The funds in question were directly utilized by the Office of the President, and the ASSL had the mandate to independently audit those funds.

This explanation was given on several occasions to the Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal preferred the evidence of a witness, who could not provide evidence; regulatory or otherwise, to back up his false assertion that authorisation was required before the ASSL could approach a third party for authentication of documents as it pertained to the type of audit in question-a COMPLIANCE audit carried out using ISSAI 4000.

This witness’ evidence was preferred in contrast to one of the defence witnesses who is an international public sector audit expert. That international expert witness is part of the International audit team that not only prepares the international audit standards, but is also the director of an international public sector audit body (INTOSAI Development Initiative), that builds the capacity of many public sector audit bodies around the world including that of staff of the Audit Service Sierra Leone. The Tribunal report mentioned that the expert was unfamiliar with the third-party confirmation process used in Sierra Leone. Interestingly, these are not supposed to be different from the universally accepted and applicable practices.

For the records, that expert witness for the defence, also provided a detailed written document on the third party verification process. No reference to this appears in this published Tribunal report.

In an AWOKO newspaper article dated Thursday December 21 2023,describing the testimony of the defence expert witness, it was mentioned that according to the expert defence witness, “auditors don’t require authorization from auditees for third party confirmation” it was also stated in that newspaper article that the witness “ stressed the importance of prioritizing public interest over confidentiality” the article went on to state that “ where is the case of a cover-up or gross negligence, seeking third party verification is justified without prior authorization”.

It is interesting to note that the Tribunal also disregarded the two Sierra Leonean defence witnesses, whose combined experience both in private and public sector auditing including within the ASSL, more than doubles the experience of the State’s own expert witness.

For the avoidance of doubt, Sierra Leone has never had, nor has there been any Sierra Leone specific audit standard, or Sierra Leone specific third party confirmation request process, as the Tribunal was falsely (and may be willingly) led to believe. Any reference to and reliance on a Sierra Leone specific audit standard or confirmation document by the Tribunal is incorrect and is a misdirection.

The confirmation request used for confirming ACCOUNT BALANCES ONLY in a Financial statement audit situation are adapted from international audit processes. There is also, as mentioned earlier, no Sierra Leone specific third party confirmation processes so such a finding is a misdirection and unsustainable.

It is very important to note that public sector auditing in Sierra Leone is carried out using international audit standards as stipulated in Section 11 (2)(a) of the Audit Service Act 2014.

In so far as the conclusion by the Tribunal that there were two separate reports prepared for the same audit, that is misleading.

The public is informed that for all audits carried out by the ASSL, the Deputy Auditor General in charge of the audit has the final decision on those reports. Draft reports are prepared by the team members for the review of the Deputy Auditor General. At the final review stage, the Deputy Auditor General has the mandate to use his professional skeptism/judgement in reviewing draft reports before signing off on the final report.

Most unfortunately, it is draft report, and the final report that the Tribunal wrongly referred to as two separate reports.

During the cross examination of the first state witness (who happened to be the team lead for the audit), he was asked to recalculate the figures stated in one of the hotel receipts presented by the state. The recalculation proved that there were errors on the receipt in question. He was reminded by the defence lawyer that such errors were grounds for his supervisor (The Deputy Auditor General Specialised audit division) to have sought further clarification on those receipts which he claimed to have been correct. All of this was never mentioned in the Tribunal report.

It is certainly not best practice for a junior officer acting under the supervision of a senior officer to produce a report, without that report being reviewed by his supervisor or updated if the need arises. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal’s report has completely misunderstood the audit process within the ASSL.

In any event, as stated below, the final Auditor General’s report 2020, which included the issue in contention was reviewed and published after my suspension, giving those who claim it was changed ample opportunity to amend it to reflect what they are now claiming. Why didn’t they?

2. Audit of Freetown City Council (FCC)

With regards the Performance audit of the FCC, the evidence given by the witnesses on this issue were not only baseless, they were unfounded, untruthful, and mischievous to say the least. The communication process pertaining to the letter described in the report is blatantly incorrect. There is a clear chain of command for dealing with such issues within the organization.

The process described by the state witness was challenged by the defence lawyer during cross examination. When asked why such a letter would be taken to Auditor General for signature, the witness told the Tribunal that he had been instructed to do so by his immediate supervisor. When asked why didn't he take the letter to his supervisor's direct supervisor who happened to be the Deputy Auditor General with full delegated responsibility for that audit division, he answered that the Deputy was not at the office at the time, though he was at work at another location. When asked what was the urgency of the letter that it could not wait for the Deputy to sign it the next day, the witness couldn't respond. For the Tribunal to report that the matter was not challenged, is incorrect.

In addition, it is important to note that there was nothing in writing provided to the Tribunal, that the Auditor General was even approached and refused to sign.

The facts are that such a letter was never brought to the Auditor General for signing. The Deputy Auditor General Specialised Audit, had full responsibility for the audit, and there was no compelling reason to justify breaking the communication chain within the organisation.

Despite the fact that the matter was not dealt with in detail during the hearings, the public should be aware that contrary to what the witnesses testified, there were email correspondences between the FCC and the witness which made it clear that the required information was actually been made available to the audit team for the said performance audit.

It is important to clarify that the Audit of the FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT of those donor funds could not have been stopped as has been mentioned in the Tribunal report, as it was not within the audit scope of the ASSL The fact is, those donor funds were not given to the FCC to be managed, the funds were not part of the consolidated revenue funds, nor was there any agreement with the donors and the ASSL for the financial management of those funds to be audited by the Audit Service. The funds were directly managed by implementing partners identified by the donors for which the donors had their own specific audit processes. They did not fall within the scope of the IPSAS Cash basis which is used in Sierra Leone. In other words, the ASSL had no business auditing the financial management of finances not given directly to the FCC by donors. Funds were managed either by the donors themselves or through their agents.

I am aware that during the Financial Statement audit of the FCC in 2019 and 2020 audit periods, there was an issue of disclosure of those funds in the Financial Statements. Under the IPSAS Cash basis of accounting that Sierra Leone uses, only finances(cash) directly managed by an entity fall under the scope of auditing the financial management of an institution. Section 2.1.78 and 2.1.79 of the IPSAS (International Public sector accounting standard) ONLY encourages disclosure of goods and services provided on behalf of an entity as a note to the Financial Statements. The projects funded by donor funds in question fall under that category of goods and services provided, as they were payments made on behalf of the FCC. This matter was resolved as they were eventually disclosed as a note to those Financial statements. The Deputy Auditor General in charge of the audit of Ministries and Local authorities, finalised those audits.

For further clarity on the FCC donor funds issue, the public is informed that for both the FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDITS and PERFORMANCE AUDITS of the FCC, donor funds were not managed by the FCC but by implementing partners identified by the donors in question. Therefore, the Financial management aspect of the use of funds could not have been audited by the ASSL. They were not for example funds for imprest given to the FCC for their direct use, these funds were not revenue generated by the FCC, nor were they provided to the FCC from the Consolidated funds for carrying out the activities of the FCC.

It is also important to reiterate, that these donor funds were not ACCOUNT balances in the FINANCIAL STATEMENTS of the FCC, for which a third party confirmation could have occurred, nor were these funds managed or utilised by the FCC for which a third party authentication of any records may have been required. These funds were not in the custody of the FCC, but were managed by implementing partners not under the purview of the ASSL. To say this was the case, is totally incorrect.

3. Conflict of Interest

I also note that the issue of Conflict of interest was mentioned as a finding in the Tribunal report when this issue was never brought up, and or no evidence was ever led to the effect during the entire course of the Tribunal hearings.

For clarity, the authors and custodians of International audit and accounting ethical standards for both public sector and non-public sector, specifically state that a situation of conflict of interest would only occur when there is a transaction or business relationship with a person who is either a spouse, child, parent, or sibling.

In such situations, the auditor should be objective and recluse themselves from the audit team.

I am fully aware that I have no such relationship with any party within these audit institutions in question, nor was I part of the audit team directly involved in the audit field work. There is no therefor no way any conflict of interest would have occurred.

There was no conflict of interest as parties within any of the audit entities in question did not fall under the category of close or immediate family relationships as defined by the international accounting and auditing professions.

4. Breach of Confidentiality

I categorically state that there was no breach of confidentiality, no information was disclosed to any party not part of the transactions in question. The only third parties from whom authentication was sought, were those whose businesses were disclosed on receipts issued as audit supporting evidence by the office of the President, even so, the letter requesting authentication did not mention the name or institution for which authentication was being sought. The letter clearly stated that a request was being made just to confirm whether those receipts (inclusive of all the errors in figures, spelling etc. contained therein) in question were indeed issued by the third party. The Deputy Auditor General responsible for the audit, used his professional judgement, and all identifying details of the Office of the President on those documents were redacted prior to the request for authentication.

These businesses were parties to the transactions, and therefore no breach of confidentiality would have occurred when requesting them to confirm that they indeed issued those receipts and or document.

It was also not imperative to seek any authorisation from the auditee for checking the authentication of the receipts. There is no audit nor ethical standards that MANDATES an authorisation by the auditee for authenticating records. In fact, it would have defeated the purpose of an independent audit process, if authorisation was required from an auditee to check the authenticity of a document which had actually been given to the auditor by that auditee, and which appeared to have issues.

On a similar note, it was observed, that one of the findings in the report had to do with a hotel receipt issued by one of the hotels in question, specifically dated 18th September 2019 as per the Tribunal report. According to the report, this receipt was confirmed in a letter submitted to the Audit Service Sierra Leone on 21st December 2021.This letter came well after we had been suspended from office. The public should know that a receipt with that date was never submitted to the auditors during the audit exercise which occurred between May and October 2021. All receipts submitted during the course of the audit exercise for which authentication was sought, had dates related to various months in 2020.

Further, I also wish to inform the public that the Auditor General’s report of 2020 which is the report in contention here, was issued under the signature of the now Acting Auditor General in December 2021. At the date of my suspension on the 11th November 2021, the report was still in the process of being finalised. The usual report writing committee retreat had not taken place, a final review of the report had not happened, and the report was a few weeks away from going to the printers. The Acting Auditor General as the final custodian of that report was in the position to have reviewed the report and dealt with anything that is now being considered as contentious in the Tribunal report. It is clear that failing to do so, and signing the report would imply that the correct information was recorded in that report.

In other words, the Tribunal based all their findings on a report that was never made or published by myself or my deputy, both of us having being suspended even before the final report was produced.

Let me say, that findings and conclusions as stipulated in the report not only negates the very essence of public sector auditing, (which is to independently safeguard the use of taxpayer’s monies), but will also negatively affect the future of any independent public sector auditing in Sierra Leone. These findings negate section 119(6) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone which is specific on the independence of the Auditor General. This Section states that: “In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other law, the Auditor-General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.”

At this stage, I must point out that no scintilla of evidence was EVER led at the Tribunal, that as Auditor General;

1. I was ever part of any individual audit team whatsoever (as my role of Auditor General precluded me from being part of any individual audit team).

2. I personally wrote any third party letter to any party whatsoever.

3 That I was team leader or supervisor of any individual audit team.

4 That I played any role whatsoever in a manner that negatively affected the work of any audit team.

In other words, throughout the hearings of the Tribunal, (as would be confirmed by members of the public who witnessed the proceedings), no evidence of any wrong doing, negligence and or misconduct on my part was led against me.

WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION; HOW THEN DID THE TRIBUNAL ARRIVE AT ITS CONCLUSIONS?

Finally, let me reiterate that for me and the staff I led, our work has never ever been about personalities, but about the professionalism and standards in doing our job. As a public servant my role is to live up to the oath I took on being appointed, and I am satisfied that I have done so at all times. Indeed, Paragraph 29 at Page 111 of the Report of the Governance Transition Team (GTT report) 2018 stated “The Audit Sierra Leone is probably Sierra Leone’s most effective institution. It is led by the Auditor General, the dynamic Lara Taylor Pearce, and 10 Deputy Auditor Generals responsible for different sets of MDAS:”

I wish to once more thank both local and international colleagues, friends, family members, and my legal team led by Mr Rowland S V Wright who have supported me throughout this process.

God bless you all.

Lara E. Taylor-Pearce(Mrs.)

(Thank you, She Bar Concepts)