Audit process

Audit missions

The Court of Accounts plays a fundamental role in giving effect to the principles of good governance through its audit powers. Under Article 144 of Organic Law No. 41 of 2019 concerning the Court of Accounts, its missions are to verify that management acts comply with legislation in force and to ensure the sound use of public funds, in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and transparency and the requirements of sustainable development.

The Court’s action is based on that Organic Law, in particular Articles 6, 8(3), 31, 36 and 37, as well as Title VI, devoted to “management audit”.

The Court’s audit methodology and procedures apply to compliance, performance and financial audits. They are established in accordance with the internationally recognised standards and principles of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), particularly the professional framework for public-sector auditing, including the fundamental principles ISSAI 100, ISSAI 200, ISSAI 300 and ISSAI 400. All this takes place within a framework that guarantees the institution’s independence and professionalism.

• Plan the mission so that a quality audit is carried out economically, cost-effectively, efficiently and within the set deadlines.
• Continuously supervise audit work at every level and stage.
• Prepare audit documentation sufficiently detailed to make the work performed, evidence obtained and conclusions clearly understandable.
• Assess the reliability of internal control to determine the scope of the mission.
• Verify compliance with the laws and regulations in force as a mandatory step.
• Design audit work to provide reasonable assurance of detecting unlawful acts that could materially influence the audit results. Any indication of an irregularity, unlawful act, fraud or error that could have a significant effect on the audit should lead the audit team to extend its procedures to substantiate or dispel the suspicion.
• Obtain sufficient, relevant evidence to support the judgment and conclusions concerning the audited entity, service, programme, activity or function.
• Maintain effective communication throughout the audit process. It is essential that the audited entity be informed of everything concerning the audit. This is fundamental to building a constructive working relationship.
• Through these missions, the Court of Accounts seeks to strengthen transparency and public accountability and provide the legislature, executive and public with objective assessment tools to correct abuses and improve public management.

Auditing local authorities

The audits assigned to the Court of Accounts by the Local Authorities Code can be summarised as follows:

Performance audit:

Under Article 68 of the aforementioned Organic Law No. 2018-29, the Court is required, at the request of the Assembly of the Representatives of the People, to prepare and publish a report evaluating the implementation of the Decentralisation Support Programme.

In this context, the Court may make recommendations to improve local authorities’ performance.

Financial audit of accounts or linked to budget implementation:

* Article 52 of the aforementioned Organic Law No. 2018-29 provides that the accounts of the Higher Council of Local Authorities (CSCL) must be audited by the Court of Accounts.

* The territorially competent Court of Accounts chambers must take the necessary measures where expenditure is executed despite a public accountant’s refusal to pay, as provided for in Article 186 of the Code.

* Under Article 195(1), the territorially competent Court of Accounts chambers are required to authorise approval of the financial account or undertake the necessary corrections where the CSCL has refused to approve that account.

* The draft budget for year N+1 may not be submitted to the local authority’s council before closure of the budget for year N-1 without authorisation from the Court of Accounts.

The participants

The Plenary Assembly:

The Plenary Assembly of the Court of Accounts comprises:

• the First President of the Court of Accounts;
• the Vice-President of the Court of Accounts;
• the presidents of the appeal chambers;
• the presidents of the central chambers;
• the presidents of the regional chambers;
• the general rapporteur;
• the secretary general;
• the presidents of the sections;
• the advisers.

The Plenary Assembly has authority to:

• determine the Court of Accounts’ audit programme;
• determine the annual programme of the Court of Accounts’ audit work;
• finalise the Court of Accounts’ general annual report and special reports;
• finalise the report on the draft budget settlement law and issue the general declaration of conformity provided for by this Law;
• finalise the report on certification of the State’s accounts;
• examine any matter referred to it by the First President of the Court or at the request of one third of its members.

Representatives of the deputy advisers on the Financial Justice Council may attend Plenary Assembly hearings without a vote.
The State Prosecutor General attached to the Court of Accounts, State prosecutors and deputy State prosecutors may attend Plenary Assembly hearings without a vote.
The secretary general of the Court of Accounts acts as rapporteur of the Plenary Assembly.

The Public Prosecution Office:

Art. 23 – The State Prosecutor General attached to the Court of Accounts is appointed from among its judges.
The State Prosecutor General represents the Public Prosecution Office attached to the Court of Accounts and has authority over all its prosecutors.
If the State Prosecutor General is unable to act, the longest-serving State prosecutor in that function acts in their place.
Art. 24 – The Public Prosecution Office attached to the Court of Accounts ensures the application of the law and exercises its powers through requests, submissions or opinions.
It is responsible for relations between the Court, on the one hand, and the bodies and institutions subject to its jurisdiction, audit or assessment, on the other.

The Public Prosecution Office is responsible for:

• ensuring that accounts are duly produced;
• presenting submissions on cases brought before the Court of Accounts;
• bringing proceedings concerning sanctions for management offences, fines arising from judgments on public accountants’ accounts and powers conferred on the Court of Accounts by special texts. Proceedings are initiated by a formal prosecutorial request;
• lodging, on behalf of the State, appeals against judgments delivered by the Court of Accounts;
• calling the attention of administrative authorities to irregularities detected in the examination of accounts or management;
• requesting a declaration of de facto management and the imposition of fines on that basis;
• notifying accountants and administrative authorities of judgments delivered by the Court of Accounts;
• requesting the imposition of fines in the cases provided for by this Law;
• bringing to the attention of public prosecutors before the ordinary courts any act whose prosecution falls within those courts’ jurisdiction, and informing the administrative authorities concerned and the State Litigation Officer.

The audit team:

Members of the audit team must collectively have the knowledge, skills and expertise necessary to carry out the audit. They must therefore have practical knowledge and experience of the type of audit being conducted, be familiar with professional standards and applicable law, understand the entity’s operations, and have the ability and experience to exercise professional judgment.

The Court has always sought to recruit judges and registrars with appropriate qualifications, provide its human resources with training and capacity-building opportunities, develop procedure manuals and other written guidance and instructions for conducting audit missions, and allocate sufficient resources to those missions.
Members of the Court must maintain their professional skills through continuing professional development.