Conducting an audit mission

Step 1

Choose the subject of the audit

Preliminary assessment phase

Audits may be required by law, requested by a legislative body or initiated by the Court under its annual programme of activities. The Court must ensure that it remains informed about priority government expenditure and about problems and concerns raised by the media that may point to potential performance audit subjects. The selected subjects must be consistent with the Court’s strategy and its three-year programme.

Step 2

Understand the nature of the entity or programme to be audited

Assessment phase: approximately two weeks

Understand its objectives, operations, regulatory environment, internal controls, financial and other systems, and operational processes, and identify potential sources of audit evidence. The audit team may acquire this knowledge by contacting management, those responsible for governance and other relevant stakeholders. It may also consult documents, including previous studies and other sources, to gain a broad understanding of the subject and its context.

Step 3

Assess risks and analyse problems

Assessment phase: approximately three weeks

The nature of the risks identified will vary according to the audit objective. The audit team must consider and assess the control risk arising from different types of deficiencies, deviations or anomalies that may affect the subject. To do so, the team may apply procedures to understand the entity or programme and its environment, including relevant internal controls. In analysing a problem, the team must consider concrete indications of problems or deviations from the desired or expected situation. This involves examining several indicators of problems in order to define the audit objectives. Throughout the audit, the risks detected and their impact on the audit must be taken into account.

Step 4

Prepare the assessment report and audit programme

Assessment phase: approximately one week

Define precisely the scope, objectives and approach of the audit. The approach will describe the nature and extent of the procedures to be applied to collect evidence. Establish an audit timetable, assign tasks appropriately among team members and determine any other resources that may be needed, such as subject-matter experts.

Step 5

Submit the assessment report and audit programme for the opinion of the Public Prosecution Office and the chamber’s approval

Assessment phase

If an audit does not address important and relevant questions about the extent to which a subject complies with laws and regulations, or about the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of an organisation, policy, programme or activity, it is considered a waste of resources. The Chamber and the Public Prosecution Office must have sufficient information on the audit subject and proposed methodology to take an informed position on the relevance of the assignment and its expected results.

Step 6

Carry out audit procedures and collect evidence

Investigation phase: between four and six months

Evidence collection is a systematic, iterative process. It entails collecting evidence through appropriate audit procedures; assessing whether the evidence collected is sufficient in quantity and appropriate in quality; reassessing risk; and collecting additional evidence where necessary. The accepted techniques for collecting evidence are primarily documentary and on-site examination, observation, requests for information, confirmation and data analysis. Managing relations with the manager during the audit is crucial and will significantly affect its success or failure. At every stage, strong communication links are important, and audited entities must be kept fully informed of the findings.

Step 7

Finalise the report and submit it for the opinion of the Public Prosecution Office and the approval of the chamber, the report and programming committee and the Plenary Assembly

Adversarial review phase

After completing the audit procedures, the team must assess the evidence to produce relevant, significant findings and reach conclusions on the subject. Reports are finalised collegially, submitted for the opinion of the Public Prosecution Office and follow an adversarial procedure, which safeguards their quality and the right of audited entities to respond.

Step 8

Publish the report and follow up

Publication phase

The Court of Accounts’ report has been public since the adoption of the new constitution. Audit results are communicated to stakeholders, those responsible for governance and citizens. Wide dissemination of the reports can strengthen the credibility and impact of the Court’s work. The Court has therefore sought to distribute its reports to audited entities and executive and/or legislative bodies and, where appropriate, to make them accessible to the public directly and through the media, as well as to interested stakeholders. Previous audit findings and recommendations must also be followed up. Reporting on that follow-up provides feedback to the legislature and, where possible, sets out the results and effects of all significant corrective measures.