JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, July 9, 2025

Where did the money go in Tobago?

by

Kyron Regis
1862 days ago
20200603

Suc­ces­sive Au­di­tor Gen­er­al re­ports have raised se­ri­ous ques­tions about the way in which pub­lic funds are be­ing ac­count­ed for by the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly.

It is a tail of fail­ure by the THA to pro­vide the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al with the ap­pro­pri­ate doc­u­ments, miss­ing vouch­ers, poor ac­count­ing and a gen­er­al lax ap­proach to ac­count­ing and spend­ing of pub­lic funds.

A 2016 re­port of the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al which looked at the 2015 fi­nan­cial year, re­vealed that vouch­ers to­talling al­most $500 mil­lion dol­lars were not pro­duced by the THA for ex­am­i­na­tion .

The 2015 re­port has a sec­tion ti­tled “In­di­vid­ual Ar­eas of Con­cern”, which high­lights “Doc­u­ments Not Pro­duced”.

In item 15 re­lat­ing to the THA it stat­ed: “Vouch­ers to sup­port two trans­fers to­talling $396,900,677 and Sched­ules of Ac­counts record­ing an­oth­er two trans­fers to­talling $101,307,055.73 to the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly were not pro­duced for au­dit scruti­ny”.

It must be not­ed that 2015 was a gen­er­al elec­tion year and was al­so the lead up to the THA elec­tion that was held in Jan­u­ary 2016.

The 2016 Au­di­tor Gen­er­al re­port al­so high­light­ed dis­crep­an­cies in ex­pen­di­ture. It not­ed that the Trans­fers to Statu­to­ry Boards and Sim­i­lar Bod­ies in To­ba­go to­talled $2,134,973,173.00, but the cor­re­spond­ing fig­ure re­flect­ed on the Ab­stract of pay­ments and the Vote Books (an ac­counts book which is used to record and mon­i­tor ex­pen­di­ture in the pub­lic sec­tor) amount­ed to $1,970,371,243.53, a dif­fer­ence of $164,601,929.47.

More­over in 2013, the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al al­so dis­cov­ered con­flict­ing ac­counts un­der the con­trol of the THA.

It stat­ed: “Ac­cord­ing to the State­ment of Ex­pen­di­ture, the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly is shown as hav­ing ex­ceed­ed the ap­proved es­ti­mates by $23,729,410.00”.

The THA’s To­tal Ex­pen­di­ture of $2,583,492,509.48 as shown in the Ap­pro­pri­a­tion Ac­count dif­fered from the fig­ure of $2,559,763,100, ac­cord­ing to the Vote Book and No­ti­fi­ca­tion of Ex­pen­di­ture.

This over­spend­ing was done even af­ter the THA was al­ready al­lo­cat­ed $2.337 bil­lion in orig­i­nal es­ti­mates for the year and an ad­di­tion­al $223 mil­lion in sup­ple­men­tary trans­fers. In 2013 the THA was the on­ly en­ti­ty in the cen­tral gov­ern­ment that over­spent af­ter re­ceiv­ing es­ti­mates.

Where did the mon­ey go?

The notes in the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al Re­ports for T&T has high­light­ed that on mul­ti­ple oc­ca­sions the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly (THA) has not been trans­par­ent, ac­count­able nor com­pli­ant when it comes to pub­lic fi­nances over the past ten years.

In the re­ports there are in­stances of over­spend­ing, doc­u­ments not be­ing pro­duced, ir­rec­on­cil­able ac­counts, con­tracts dis­ap­pear­ing, and in one in­stance, the THA was even in con­tra­ven­tion of its fi­nan­cial rules.

In 2017, an is­sue that arose with the un­em­ploy­ment re­lief pro­gramme fund, where the re­port not­ed that there was a dif­fer­ence of $703,693.27 be­tween the cash bal­ance record­ed in the Cash Book and the rec­on­ciled cash bal­ance shown in the Bank Rec­on­cil­i­a­tion State­ment as at 30th Sep­tem­ber 2017.

But this was not the first time prob­lems with the un­em­ploy­ment re­lief fund have arisen. A year be­fore, in 2016, un­der the un­em­ploy­ment pro­gramme, con­tracts were not pro­duced to sup­port pay­ments to ser­vice providers for trans­port ($605,649.80) and for spe­cial projects ($1,460,583.25).

The re­port al­so in­dict­ed: “A per­ma­nent pub­lic of­fi­cer em­ployed with the Di­vi­sion of In­fra­struc­ture and Pub­lic Util­i­ties sup­plied trans­port ser­vices to the Di­vi­sion in con­tra­ven­tion of Reg­u­la­tion 16(1) of the Cen­tral Ten­ders Board Reg­u­la­tions and the Civ­il Ser­vice Reg­u­la­tions 137(1).”

Fur­ther­more, the 2016 re­port in­di­cat­ed that bank rec­on­cil­i­a­tion un­der the un­em­ploy­ment re­lief fund were not pre­pared on a reg­u­lar and time­ly ba­sis. It al­so not­ed that the “List of Un­paid Cheques” was in­com­plete in that some cheques were omit­ted.

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, the re­port not­ed that the Cash Book fig­ure dif­fered from the cor­re­spond­ing fig­ure in the Bank Rec­on­cil­i­a­tion State­ment by $92,617.51.

In 2014, af­ter the THA spent ap­prox­i­mate­ly $19 mil­lion on its un­em­ploy­ment pro­gramme, it al­so breached fi­nan­cial codes and spend an­oth­er $49 mil­lion on the said pro­gramme. The re­port in­di­cat­ed: “Fur­ther ex­pen­di­ture on the Un­em­ploy­ment Re­lief Pro­gramme amount­ing to $49,416,337.00 were fund­ed by re­leas­es from the Con­tin­gen­cies Ac­count of the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly.”

Ac­cord­ing to the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al’s re­port, the spend­ing con­tra­venes the THA Fi­nan­cial Rule No. 34 which stip­u­lates that “mon­eys shall not be with­drawn from the Con­tin­gen­cies Ac­count oth­er than for the pur­pos­es of meet­ing ur­gent or un­fore­seen ex­pen­di­ture.”

In 2011, the fi­nan­cial state­ments per­tain­ing to the fund were al­so not pre­sent­ed.

The 2011 Au­di­tor Gen­er­al re­port re­vealed that state­ments rec­on­cil­ing the cash bal­ance ac­cord­ing to the records of the THA’s Di­vi­sion of In­fra­struc­ture and Pub­lic Util­i­ties, with the bal­ance cer­ti­fied by the bank, were not pro­duced for au­dit.

The re­port al­so in­di­cat­ed that the au­di­tor gen­er­al, on sev­er­al of the records ex­am­ined, did not see the ev­i­dence of in­ter­nal au­dit checks at the THA.

Ac­cord­ing to the ac­count­ing records in the 2011 re­port, one of the ac­tiv­i­ties un­der the un­em­ploy­ment pro­gramme, “the man­u­fac­ture of fur­ni­ture for sale” lacked struc­ture and trans­paren­cy. The re­port al­so not­ed that up­on ex­am­i­na­tion there was no stan­dard­ized pric­ing struc­ture for fur­ni­ture sold at the work­shop, no record of the items made and no ev­i­dence to in­di­cate that the cus­tomer re­ceived the item.

The re­port added: “Fur­ther, it was not de­ter­mined whether re­ceipts were is­sued for de­posits made on items or­dered.”

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, in the pre­vi­ous year 2010, the notes to the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al’s re­port in­di­cat­ed a dis­crep­an­cy in the fi­nan­cial state­ments of the mon­ey dis­bursed for un­em­ploy­ment re­lief .

The re­port stat­ed: “A State­ment re­flect­ing ex­pen­di­ture of $16,958,952.36 was re­ceived from the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly in re­spect of the $17,000,000 dis­bursed by the Per­ma­nent Sec­re­tary, Min­istry of Fi­nance. An ex­am­i­na­tion of the Fi­nan­cial State­ment re­vealed that vouch­ers to­talling $3,808,377.22 were not pro­duced for au­dit.”

The Busi­ness Guardian emailed both Chief Sec­re­tary An­cil Den­nis and Sec­re­tary of Fi­nance and the Econ­o­my Joel Jack for com­ment on the re­cent SBG ar­ti­cle en­ti­tled “A Waste of Tax­pay­ers’ Mon­ey”.

The Busi­ness Guardian al­so asked the sec­re­taries: “How do you re­spond to the al­le­ga­tions of To­ba­go’s poor judg­ment in spend­ing in the years 2015 and 2016?” and “Do you be­lieve that the al­le­ga­tions con­cern­ing To­ba­go need­ing stricter over­sight, ac­count­abil­i­ty and trans­paren­cy to be of mer­it?”

Up un­til press time, nei­ther Den­nis nor Jack re­spond­ed.

Trinidad and TobagoAncil DennisTHAFinance


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored