Question 120

Must a branch of government other than the executive (such as the legislature or the judiciary) give final consent before the head of the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) can be removed from office?
 * a. Yes, the head of the SAI may only be removed by the legislature or judiciary, or the legislature or judiciary must give final consent before he or she is removed.
 * b. No, the executive may remove the head of the SAI without the final consent of the judiciary or legislature.
 * c. Not applicable/other (please comment).

OBS Guidelines
Question 120 covers the manner in which the head or senior members of the SAI may be removed from office. This question draws on best practices identified in the Lima Declaration of Guidelines on Auditing Precepts, including measures intended to guarantee the office’s independence from the executive.

To answer “a,” the head of the SAI may only be removed by the legislature or judiciary, or the legislature or judiciary must give final consent before the head of the SAI is removed. For example, the legislature or judiciary may give final consent following a certain external process, such as a criminal proceeding. So while the executive may initiate a criminal proceeding, the final consent of a member of the judiciary — or a judge — is necessary to render a verdict of wrongdoing that may lead to the removal from office of the head of the SAI. Answer “b” applies if the executive may remove the head of the SAI without the final consent of the judiciary or legislature.

1) Authoritative governments
If a country has a single ruler who has executive, legislative, and judicial powers, then answer “b” applies. For example, in Qatar, all powers regarding the appointment and removal of the SAI’s head rests with the Emir. The constitution gives the Emir unlimited authority with no separation between legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

2) Appointment of SAI head not defined in law
Example from Somalia: The process for appointing the Auditor General is not defined anywhere in law, and that there does not seem to be any historical precedent for what happens in practice. Recently, the Auditor General was approved by Parliament in a vote and the PFM Act is in a draft form and the provisional constitution does not mention the process of appointing, removing, or funding the SAI ==> response “e.” See Somalia Open Budget Survey 2017

3) What if there are different conditions governing the removal of the head of the SAI?
In Afghanistan in OBS 2019, the Supreme Audit Office Law governs the removal of the head of the SAI:

1. Article 8.1 says that if there a criminal conviction, then the judiciary decides on the removal; 2. Articles 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 have conditions where the President can remove the SAI head, including party membership, neglect of duty, and providing inaccurate information.

We scored this question "b" as Article 8.3 seems particularly troubling for the independence of the SAI, as it gives the president ample margin to remove the head of the SAI by alleging unsatisfactory performance, which is very open to interpretation.