This section provides a summary of the recommendations provided throughout this report, grouped by the stakeholders to which they are primarily aimed at.
Strengthening the Independence of Supreme Audit Institutions
Looking at Informal Factors Beyond Legal Safeguards
Report
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
4. Summary of Recommendations
Copy link to 4. Summary of RecommendationsAbstract
4.1. Executive
Copy link to 4.1. ExecutiveTo limit undue involvement in external audit functions, the executive could clarify and strengthen its responsibility for internal control and audit, accounting systems, and policymaking powers on public integrity and broader public governance performance.
To strengthen fiscal transparency, the executive could clarify policy priorities underpinning fiscal rules and their application.
To strengthen accountability and support SAI independence, the executive could improve the follow-up of audit recommendations through structured engagement with the SAI and the legislature.
To reinforce the independence of SAIs, in jurisdictions where the executive has a constitutionally defined role in the nomination or appointment process of the head of the SAI, robust safeguards should be applied to ensure that this role is exercised in a transparent and merit-based manner, consistent with the principle of SAI independence.
The executive could carefully consider potential unintended consequences related to legal reforms proposals affecting the mandate and functions of the SAI and other accountability actors:
Ensure legal coherence of new and existing legislation.
Legal reforms should consider threats to independence, the broader accountability ecosystem, and required resources.
4.2. Legislature
Copy link to 4.2. LegislatureThrough their lawmaking, the legislature can support SAI independence by strengthening laws and regulations that underpin the institutional architecture of SAIs and protect their mandate:
To enhance the long-term independence and operational sustainability of the SAI, the legislature could strengthen the SAI’s institutional architecture by ensuring that legal requirements of internal structures and leadership arrangements are designed to minimise political influence, preserve institutional knowledge and support continuity.
To strengthen the independence and credibility of a SAI, the legislature could enhance the transparency of the appointment, the tenure and dismissal frameworks of heads of SAIs:
Ensure a transparent and merit-based appointment of heads of SAI
Strengthen the tenure and dismissal framework of the head of the SAI to minimise fear of retaliation in the exercise of legal duties, political pressure and perceptions of influence
The legislature should carefully consider the implications of legal reforms for SAI independence, the accountability ecosystem, and resource requirements.
Strengthening their own internal institutional arrangements and capacities could improve the effectiveness and credibility of the legislature’s oversight role:
To strengthen credible and autonomous oversight, the legislature could consider establishing an independent budget management office to help ensure robust checks and balances, clear division of powers, and sound fiscal transparency practices are applied, thereby creating positive institutional conditions for the independence of the SAI.
To strengthen legislative oversight, the legislature could enhance its capacity and institutional capability to engage effectively with the SAIs and maintain institutional memory.
By engaging with the SAI through transparent and well-defined procedures, the legislature can balance effective oversight with respect for the SAI’s autonomy, reinforcing both accountability and independence:
To promote effective legislative oversight while safeguarding audit independence, countries could consider establishing agreed procedures for legislative audit requests to SAIs through clear agreements defining scope, criteria and follow-up arrangements.
To strengthen public accountability, the legislature could consider reinforcing the follow-up of audit recommendations through a systematic, committee-based mechanism that complements the SAI’s follow-up process.
To safeguard audit independence and timely legislative scrutiny, the legislature could consider establishing binding procedures for the tabling of audit reports that ensure automatic and non-discretionary submission to the legislature.
4.3. Other actors beyond the executive and the legislature
Copy link to 4.3. Other actors beyond the executive and the legislatureThe judiciary could be engaged with the SAIs through structured mechanisms and supported by clear legal and operational safeguards to reinforce SAI independence.
Donors could provide co-ordinated and systemic support to SAIs, aligned with national priorities and the broader accountability ecosystem.
SAI independence can benefit from, and contribute to, the strengthened independence of other oversight institutions.
4.4. Supreme audit institutions
Copy link to 4.4. Supreme audit institutionsTo strengthen the reliability of their work, SAIs could enhance their implementation of international standards and good practices for following up on audit recommendations and for ensuring consistent and transparent institutional communication:
SAIs could reinforce the systematic and visible implementation of International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs) to demonstrate technical independence and professional consistency across political cycles.
SAIs could establish and maintain robust, systematic and transparent processes to follow up on audit recommendations to reinforce their credibility, effectiveness and contribution to public sector accountability.
SAIs could enhance their responsiveness by ensuring that audit topics, findings and recommendations are timely, relevant and aligned with emerging risks and public interest concerns, while systematically using audit data to inform both oversight and insight perspectives:
SAIs could ensure that the selection of their audit topics is demonstrably based on legal requirements, objective criteria and transparent methodologies, so as to reinforce perceptions of independence and professional judgement.
SAIs could leverage the data, findings and recommendations generated through their audit reports to develop both insight and foresight perspectives.
SAIs could fulfil their statutory transparency responsibilities and adopt a proactive approach to openness, including the systematic publication of key information, clear communication with stakeholders and the public and engagement mechanisms to address questions and prevent the spread of misleading information:
SAIs could strengthen transparency practices to enhance accountability and openness.
SAIs could implement structured mechanisms for internal and external stakeholder engagement.
SAIs could strengthen their capacity to prevent and respond to the spread of misleading information by adopting a proactive, audience focused, and collaborative approach to public communication.
By establishing strong internal integrity frameworks, SAIs can mitigate risks of undue influence, reinforce credibility, demonstrate impartiality and strengthen public trust in their work.
To enhance fairness and credibility, SAIs could establish transparent policies to manage informal interactions between auditors and auditees.