Issuu on Google+

HakiElimu • PO Box 79401 • Dar es Salaam • Tanzania Tel. (255 22) 2151852 / 3 • Fax (255 22) 2152449 info@hakielimu.org • www.hakielimu.org

Reprinted by: POLICY FORUM

All data is available for download on REPOA’s Tanzania Governance Noticeboard, which can be accessed at www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php. Care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, but the producers of this leaflet are not responsible for typographical or other errors at source. Information herein should be treated with caution and checked against the original reports. For more information and explanation readers should consult the CAG office, P.O. Box 9080, Dar es Salaam, or via e-mail at ocag@nao.or.tz. 1

The information in this leaflet is taken from the Tanzania Governance Noticeboard (TGN) database on the REPOA website. The TGN is a USAID supported project, implemented by REPOA that collates and presents information that is useful for the strengthening of accountability, transparency and integrity in Tanzania. The source of the audit data is the reports of the Controller and Auditor General. Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA) is an independent, non-profit making, Tanzanian NGO, with the mandate to undertake and facilitate research in the area of poverty and related policy issues.

This leaflet presents the findings of CAG Annual Reports for MDAs for the three most recent financial 1 years for which data is publicly available (2002/03, 2003/04, and 2004/05). It highlights recent key findings, and compares the findings of the different ministries. The purpose is to make this information more broadly available to the public so as to promote understanding, debate and public action.

Read this leaflet and share it with others. Discuss and debate. Put up this poster in a public place Learn more! You can download the full audit reports for each district from the Tanzania Governance Notice board (www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php) Advocate for audit reports to be posted on district and ward notice boards Write to your MP and ask him or her to follow up Write a letter to the editor Send your comments to the Government website for the wananchi at www.maoni.org

The Judiciary (Vote 40) released Tsh 1.4 billion for construction and rehabilitation activities that could not be verified, implying that “the whole process of procurement (tendering) might not have been followed and may lead to loss of Government funds.”

The Ministry of Defence (Vote 38) did not provide supporting documents to verify the purchase of a house in London for Tsh 240 million. The ministry was also unable to account for Tsh 50.6 million for medical expenses abroad.

The Ministry of Health (Vote 52) paid Tsh 20 million to the Permanent Secretary (Ministry of Health) for Consultancy Services on Health Care without following procurement regulations. Furthermore, “there was no evidence which indicated that the consultant was engaged and consultancy service actually took place.”

The Prime Minister’s Office (Vote 37) paid Tsh 7.7 million for meal allowances without the proper documents to authenticate the completion of the transaction.

The President’s Office, Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG), could not account for Tsh 599 million paid to the Principal of Hombolo Institute Dodoma

PO-RALG also breached procurement procedures for the purchase of office stationery, laptop computers, furniture, and the installation of a generator.

Implementation of this process has been somewhat weak. Audit reports have not been fully debated in Parliament. Significantly there appears to have been little action taken on the audit findings. This may now be changing. Soon after his election, President Kikwete announced that the CAG would be given legal powers to follow up on negative findings. He has also said that public servants found guilty of embezzlement should be handed over to the police to be prosecuted rather than go before administrative tribunals that impose more lenient “disciplinary measures.” The Controller and Auditor General (CAG) inspects the accounts of each ministry on a yearly basis and records instances where the accounts do not give satisfactory explanation of how the money has been spent. The CAG compiles a report for each MDA, which is then tabled in the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for deliberation and scrutiny. The PAC issues recommendations for follow up. This report is then meant to be discussed in open sessions of Parliament and forwarded to the Ministry of Finance for further action. Despite the fact that the Government is currently working to strengthen local government, much of its dayto-day operations are still highly centralized. Currently, about three-quarters of all the money that Government spends flows through central Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). The MDAs get their money in large part from the taxes that all citizens pay, such as income tax or valueadded tax (VAT), as well as donor support. This money funds a range of services that are administered at the central Government level, such as salaries, major construction projects, secondary education, and national health interventions.

Why this Leaflet?

Findings from Recent Audit Reports

Is Central Government Managing Money Well? Understanding the Data The table overleaf presents three indicators from the CAG reports: 2

Next, the table also shows questioned expenditure as a percentage of discretionary expenditure3, which helps us compare MDAs with budgets of different sizes. Clean: Accounts are fully satisfactory. Finally, the table shows the auditor’s opinion of each MDA. The auditor’s Qualified: There is a problem with some parts opinion is a summary evaluation that takes of the accounts. into account all factors considered in the Adverse: The accounts do not give a true audit report. The auditor’s opinions can picture of the actual situation. fall into one of the following three categories: “Clean,” “Qualified,” or “Adverse.” (See box)

First, the table shows the sum of selected items of questioned expenditure for each MDA for the most recent year. The MDAs are ranked from best to worst performer by this indicator.

For an MDA to be considered fully accountable for the money it spends, it should have low to zero questioned expenditure, and a “Clean” auditor’s opinion.

Where Did 200 Billion Shillings Go? In 2004/05, MDAs were unable to account for Tsh 203 billion,4 or 10 percent of discretionary expenditure. This amount is almost three times more than the previous two years (Tsh 65 billion in 2002/03 and Tsh 82 billion in 2003/04). Questioned expenditure as a percentage of discretionary expenditure also increased significantly. Over half of the questioned Tsh 203 billion comes from just five MDAs, each of which reported questioned expenditure of more than Tsh 25 billion. These ministries are listed in Table 1. In 2004/05, the Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government (now known as the Prime Minister’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Table 1: MDAs with Highest Questioned Government), had questioned expenditure of Expenditure, 2004/05 Tsh 36 billion. Much of this questioned expenditure Questioned Exp. resulted from payments (for goods, works, and Ministry (billions of Tsh) services, and in the form of current transfers and subsidies) for which no supporting documents were provided 1. Regional Administration and Local Government 2. Ministry of Health 3. National Accounts/Public Debt and General Services 4. Ministry of Works 5. Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education Total

36.4 32.4

29.4 28.0 25.6 151.8

Ministry of Health questioned expenditure included payments of nearly Tsh 30 billion for “goods not delivered.” To put that figure in perspective, it is more than the total amount that the Ministry of Health budgeted for anti-retroviral therapy (about Tsh 23 billion) in the most recent financial year

2 “Questioned expenditure” refers to expenditure about which the auditor is not satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed, or for which there is insufficient or missing documentation to document that the money has been spent for the correct purpose and that the goods or services have been delivered. The items of questioned expenditure that have been included are “unauthorised expenditure”, “unvouchered expenditure”, “improperly vouchered expenditure”, and “irregular payments”. 3 Discretionary expenditure is defined here to mean non-salary expenditure. It is the sum of total recurrent and development expenditure minus personnel emoluments (salaries). The discretionary budget gives a better sense of how much money each MDA actually has control over. This is likely an underestimate, since some MDAs were excluded due to missing data.

The Ministry of Works registered questioned expenditure of Tsh 28 billion, or nearly half of discretionary expenditure. This resulted largely from irregular payments (totaling Tsh 17 billion), including the purchase of residential houses for the Tanzania Buildings Agency. The Works audit also noted non-compliance with procurement and other laws. For instance, Tsh 17 billion was used for rehabilitation of regional roads but itemized expenditure showing analysis of respective roads rehabilitated was not available.

Auditors’ Opinions Despite the fact that MDAs reported poor performance in terms of the magnitude of questioned expenditure for 2004/05, they did relatively well in terms of auditors’ opinions. However, two “Adverse” opinions were issued in 2004/05, whereas none were in the previous two years. The “Adverse” opinions were given to the Electoral Commission and the Ministry of Defence.

# of ministries

2 •

Tanzania Governance Noticeboard at REPOA • • • • • • •

You have the information. Now it is up to you to make a difference. Use of public funds will improve when people take interest and follow up. Here is a short list of actions you can take.

What You Can Do •

Excerpts from the 2004/05 Reports for MDAs

This Leaflet Is Not For Sale 25

Figure 1: Auditor’s Opinions, MDAs

25 22

26

21

20

Adverse Qualified Clean

18 15

15 10

5 As shown in Figure 1, about one third of the 0 MDAs (15 out of 43) received “Clean” opinions 0 in 2004/05, while 26 received “Qualified” 2002/03 opinions and two received “Adverse” opinions. This represents a change from the previous years, when more “Clean” opinions, and no “Adverse” opinions were issued.

2 0 2003/04

2004/05

There does not appear to be a strong correlation between auditors’ opinions and questioned expenditure. For instance, as noted above, the Ministry of Works had Tsh 28 billion of questioned expenditure – nearly half of discretionary expenditure for the ministry – and still received a “Qualified” opinion. The Industrial Court had only Tsh 2.2 million in questioned expenditure, or less than 1 percent of discretionary expenditure, but also received a “Qualified” opinion. It is interesting to compare MDAs that received “Clean” audit opinions with the amounts of questioned expenditure. It makes sense that the six ministries reporting zero questioned expenditure received “Clean” reports. These six are all ‘high offices’ housed in the executive branch of Government and it might be interesting to study the reasons behind their exemplary performance. However, the Vice President’s Office, which had over Tsh 3 billion in questioned expenditure, and the Ministry of Community Development, Women Affairs and Children, which had Tsh 550 million in questioned expenditure, also got “Clean” reports. There is wide variation across the MDAs, with some of them registering improvements in terms of financial accountability, others showing declines, and some remaining about the same. For instance, the Judiciary was shown to have questioned expenditure of Tsh 1.5 billion in 2002/03. In 2004/05, the Judiciary’s questioned expenditure had increased by nearly three times, to Tsh 4.5 billion. On the other hand, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security saw its questioned expenditure decline from Tsh 8.5 billion to Tsh 226 million between 2003/4 and 2004/05.

4


POLICY FORUM imesaidia kuchapisha nakala za ziada

Kisome kipeperushi hiki na uwashirikishe wenzako. Jadiliana na fanya mdahalo. Bango hili liweke mahali wazi. Jifunze zaidi! Unaweza kupata ripoti za ukaguzi wa kila wilaya kutoka kwenye Ubao wa Matangazo wa Utawala wa Tanzania (www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php) Hamasisha ili ripoti za ukaguzi ziwekwe kwenye mbao za matangazo za wilaya na kata. Hudhuria mkutano ujao wa mtaa au halmashauri kamili katika wilaya yako na muombe diwani wako aongelee kuhusu matokeo ya ukaguzi wa hesabu za hivi karibuni. Mwandikie Mbunge wako na muombe afuatilie Andika barua kwa mhariri Peleka maoni yako kwenye tovuti ya Serikali kwa ajili ya wananchi kwenye: www.maoni.org

Wizara ya Afya (fungu 52) ilimlipa Katibu Mkuu shilingi milioni 20 kwa huduma za ushauri kuhusu huduma za afya ambazo hazikuzingatia taratibu za manunuzi. Zaidi “hakukuwa na uthibitisho wa kuonyesha kuwa mshauri alihusishwa na huduma kwa uhakika ilitolewa”.

Ofisi ya Waziri Mkuu (Fungu 37) ililipa shilingi milioni 7.7 kama posho ya chakula na hapakuwa na nyaraka zinazotakiwa kuhalalisha ukamilifu wa malipo hayo.

Ofisi ya Rais, Tawala za Mikoa na Serikali za Mitaa (TAMISEMI) haikutolea maelezo shilingi milioni 599 zilizopelekwa kwa Mkuu wa Taasisi ya Hombolo Dodoma.

TAMISEMI pia walikiuka taratibu za manunuzi wakinunua vifaa vya ofisini, kompyuta, samani na manunuzi ya jenereta. Mahakama (fungu 40) ilitumia shilingi bilioni 1.4 kwa shughuli za ujenzi na ukarabati ambazo hazikuweza kuthibitishwa, hii ikimaanisha kuwa “mchakato mzima wa manunuzi (tenda) inawezekana haukufuatwa na kunauwezekano wa kutokea upotevu wa fedha za serikali”.

Wizara ya Ulinzi (fungu 38) haikuwasilisha nyaraka za kuthibitisha manunuzi ya nyumba jijini London, Uingereza kwa shilingi milioni 240. Wizara pia haikuweza kutolea maelezo ya shilingi 50.6 zilizo gharimia matibabu nje ya nchi.

Kipeperushi hiki kinawasilisha matokeo ya Ripoti za Mwaka za CAG kwa ajili ya MDA kwa vipindi vya miaka mitatu ya fedha ya hivi karibuni ambavyo takwimu zake zinapatikana bayana (2002/03, 2003/04, na 1 2004/05). Kipeperushi kinasisitiza matokeo ya msingi ya hivi karibuni, na kufananisha matokeo ya wilaya mbalimbali. Madhumuni ni kuifanya taarifa hii ipatikane kwa wananchi kwa mapana zaidi ili kukuza uelewano, mjadala na hatua za umma. Kwa kiasi fulani, utekelezaji wa mchakato huu umekuwa ni dhaifu. Ripoti za ukaguzi wa hesabu hazijapata kujadiliwa kikamilifu katika Bunge. Kiumuhimu, inaelekea kumekuwepo na hatua chache zilizochukuliwa kuhusu matokeo ya ukaguzi wa hesabu. Inawezekana hili likawa linabadilika hivi sasa. Mara tu baada ya uchaguzi huu Rais Kikwete alitangaza kwamba CAG angepewa nguvu zaidi za kisheria kufuatilia matokeo hasi. Pia, amesema kwamba watumishi wa serikali wanaopatikana na hatia ya ubadhirifu wanapaswa wakabidhiwe kwa polisi ili washitakiwe kuliko kupelekwa kwenye mabaraza ya kiutawala ambayo hutoa “hatua za kinidhamu” zilizo na huruma zaidi. Mdhibiti na Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu (CAG) hukagua hesabu za kila MDA kila mwaka na kuweka kumbukumbu ya hali pale ambapo hesabu hazitoi maelezo ya kuridhisha kuhusu fedha zilivyotumika. CAG hukusanya ripoti kwa ajili ya kila MDA, ambayo hatimaye huwasilishwa katika Kamati ya Bunge ya Hesabu za Umma (PAC) kwa mjadala na uchunguzi makini. PAC hutoa mapendekezo kwa ajili ya ufuatiliaji. Halafu, ripoti hii hujadiliwa katika vikao wazi vya Bunge na kupelekwa kwa Waziri Mkuu kwa ajili ya hatua zaidi. Pamoja na ukweli kwamba hivi sasa Serikali inafanya kazi kuziimarisha serikali za mitaa, sehemu kubwa ya shughuli zake za kila siku imewekwa zaidi makao makuu. Hivi sasa kiasi cha robo tatu ya fedha zote ambazo Serikali huzitumia hupitia Wizara na Idara za Serikali Kuu na Wakala (MDA). MDA hupata kiasi kikubwa cha fedha zao kutoka kwenye kodi ambazo raia wote hulipa, kama vile kodi ya mapato au kodi ya ongezeko la thamani (VAT) pamoja na msaada wa wafadhili. Fedha hizi hugharamia mlolongo wa huduma kadhaa ambazo husimamiwa kwenye ngazi ya Serikali kuu, kama vile mishahara ya wafanyakazi, miradi mikuu ya ujenzi, elimu ya sekondari, na afya.

Kwa nini kipeperushi hiki?

Matokeo kutoka kwenye Ripoti za Ukaguzi wa Hesabu za Hivi Karibuni

Je, Serikali Kuu Inasimamia Fedha Vizuri? Kuzielewa Takwimu Jedwali linawakilisha viashiria vitatu kwenye ripoti za CAG:

Halafu, pia jedwali linaonesha matumizi yenye dosari kama asilimia ya matumizi ya hiari3, ambayo inatusaidia kuzilinganisha MDA zenye bajeti zenye ukubwa tofauti.

Kwanza, jedwali linaonesha idadi ya jumla ya vipengele vilivyochaguliwa vya matumizi yenye dosari2 kwa kila MDA kwa mwaka kwa taarifa za hivi karibuni kabisa. MDA zimepangwa na kiashiria kwa ubora kuanzia mtendaji bora hadi mbaya kuliko zote.

4

36.4 32.4 29.4 28.0

Wizara ya Ujenzi ilipata matumizi yenye dosari ya takriban shilingi bilioni 28 au karibu nusu ya matumizi ya uamuzi hiari. Kiasi kikubwa kilitokana na malipo yasiyo ya kawaida (yanayofikia shilingi bilioni 17), ikiwa ni pamoja na manunuzi ya nyumba za kuishi kwa ajili ya Wakala wa Majengo Tanzania. Ukaguzi wa hesabu za Ujenzi pia ulizingatia ukiukwaji wa sheria za manunuzi na sheria nyinginezo. Kwa mfano, shilingi bilioni 17 zilitumika kwa ukarabati wa barabara za mikoa. Vipengele vya matumizi vinaonesha uchanganuzi wa barabara husika zilizokarabatiwa havikuwepo.

Maoni ya Wakaguzi wa Hesabu

Safi: Hesabu zinaridhisha kikamilifu Enye Dosari: Baadhi ya sehemu za hesabu zina upungufu

Mbaya: Hesabu hazitoi picha ya hali halisi. Mwisho, jedwali linaonesha maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu kwa kila MDA. Maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu ni muhtasari wa tathmini ambayo inazingatia vigezo vyote vilivyozingatiwa katika ripoti ya ukaguzi wa hesabu. Maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu yanaweza kuangukia katika mojawapo ya aina hizi tatu: “Safi,” “Enye Dosari,” au “Mbaya”. (Tazama kisanduku)

Ili MDA iweze kuhesabiwa kuwa imewajibika kikamilifu kwa fedha inazozitumia, inapaswa iwe na matumizi yenye dosari ya kiwango cha chini hadi sifuri, na maoni “Safi” ya mkaguzi wa hesabu.

Shilingi Bilioni 200 Zilikwenda Wapi? Katika mwaka 2004/05 MDA walishindwa kutoa maelezo ya shilingi bilioni 203 , au asilimia 10 ya matumizi ya uamuzi hiari. Kiasi hiki ni karibu mara tatu zaidi ya miaka miwili iliyotangulia (shilingi bilioni 65 katika 2002/03 na shilingi bilioni 82 katika 2003/04). Matumizi yenye dosari kama asilimia ya matumizi ya uamuzi hiari pia yaliongezeka sana. Zaidi ya nusu ya shilingi bilioni 203 zenye dosari zinatoka kwenye MDA tano tu, ambazo kila moja ina matumizi yenye dosari ya zaidi ya shilingi bilioni 25. Wizara hizo zimeorodheshwa katika Jedwali 1. Jedwali 1: Wizara zenye viwango vya juu kabisa vya matumizi yenye dosari, 2004/05 Matumizi Wizara yenye dosari (Tsh bilioni) 1. Tawala za Mikoa na Serikali za Mitaa 2. Wizara ya Afya 3. Hazina/Deni la Taifa 4. Wizara ya Ujenzi

Katika 2004/05, Wizara ya Tawala za Mikoa na Serikali za Mitaa (Sasa inajulikana kama Ofisi ya Waziri Mkuu – Tawala za Mikoa na Serikali za Mitaa) ilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya shilingi bilioni 36. Sehemu kubwa ya matumizi haya yenye dosari ilitokana na malipo (kwa ajili ya bidhaa, kazi, na huduma na katika mfano wa uhamisho wa hivi karibuni na ruzuku) ambayo hayakuambatana na hati za uthibitisho.

Matumizi yenye dosari ya Wizara ya Afya yalijumuisha 5. Wizara ya Elimu ya Juu, malipo ya karibu shilingi bilioni 30 kwa “bidhaa Sayansi na Teknolojia 25.6 ambazo hazikuwasilishwa”. Kuiweka hesabu hiyo Jumla 151.8 katika mlingano ni zaidi ya kiasi kilichopangiwa bajeti kwa ajili ya tiba ya virusigeuzi – ARVs (kiasi cha shilingi bilioni 23) katika mwaka 2004/05. 2 “Matumizi yenye dosari” ni kuhusu matumizi ambayo mkaguzi wa hesabu za fedha hakuridhika kwamba taratibu sahihi zimefuatwa, au matumizi ambayo yana hati zisizotosheleza au zinazokosekana kuthibitisha kwamba fedha zimetumika kwa madhumuni sahihi na kwamba bidhaa au huduma zimetolewa. Vipengele vya matumizi yenye dosari ambavyo vimejumlishwa na “matumizi yasiyoidhinishwa”, “matumizi yasiyo na hati za malipo”, na “malipo yasiyo ya kawaida”. 3 Bajeti ya hiari inaainishwa kama bajeti isiyo ya mishahara. Ni jumla ya idadi ya matumizi ya kawaida na matumizi ya maendeleo jumlisha ya mapato ya chanzo chako mwenyewe kutoa mishahara. Bajeti ya uamuzi wa hiari hutoa hali nzuri zaidi ya kiasi gani hasa cha fedha kila MDA kina udhibiti nacho. Haya yanaelekea kuwa maelezo pungufu, kwa vile baadhi ya MDA waliwachwa kutokana na data iliyokosekana.

Pamoja na ukweli kwamba MDA walionesha utendaji dhaifu kwa kuzingatia ukubwa wa matumizi yenye dosari kwa mwaka 2004/05, walifanya vizuri kiasi kwa mujibu wa maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu. Hata hivyo, yalitolewa maoni mawili ya “Mbaya” katika mwaka 2004/05, ambapo hakuna yaliyotolewa katika miaka miwili iliyotangulia. Maoni ya “Mbaya” yalitolewa kwa Tume ya Uchaguzi na Wizara ya Ulinzi.

# ya wilaya

2 •

HakiElimu • S.L.P 79401 • Dar es Salaam • Tanzania Simu. (255 22) 2151852 / 3 • Faksi: (255 22) 2152449 info@hakielimu.org • www.hakielimu.org

Takwimu zote zilizopo kwenye Ubao wa REPOA wa Matangazo ya Utawala Tanzania kupitia tovuti hii www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php. Uangalifu umezingatiwa kuhakikisha usahihi wa data hii lakini watoaji wa kipeperushi hiki hawawajibiki kwa matatizo yoyote ya kimaandishi ya kwenye chanzo. Taarifa zilizomo humu zinapaswa ziangaliwe kwa uangalifu na kuhakikishwa dhidi ya ripoti halisi kwa ajili ya taarifa na maelezo zaidi wasomaji wanapaswa wawasiliane na ofisi ya CAG, S.L.P. 9080, Dar es Salaam au kupitia barua pepe kwenye ocag@nao.or.tz. 1

Taarifa zote katika kipeperushi hiki zimenukuliwa kutoka katika Ubao wa Matangazo ya Utawala Tanzania (TGN) unaopatikana katika tovuti ya REPOA. TGN ni Mradi ambao unafadhiliwa na Shirika la Kutoa Misaada ya Maendeleo la Marekani (USAID) na unatekelezwa na REPOA. Mradi huu hukusanya na kutoa taarifa muhimu za kiutawala kwa lengo la kukuza uwajibikaji, uwazi na uadilifu nchini Tanzania. Chanzo kikuu cha taarifa za ukaguzi ni Ripoti za mwaka za Mdhibiti na Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali. REPOA ni taasisi huru ya kitanzania, isiyokuwa ya kiserikali na isiyolenga kujipatia faida. Jukumu lake ni kufanya utafiti na kuwezesha ufanyikaji wa tafiti katika masuala yanayohusiana na umaskini na sera husika.

Ubao wa Matangazo ya Utawala Tanzania, REPOA. • • • • • • • •

Taarifa unayo. Hivyo, ni juu yako kuleta mabadiliko. Matumizi ya fedha za umma yataboreka wakati watu watakapokuwa na shauku na kufuatilia. Ifuatayo ni orodha fupi ya hatua unazoweza kuchukua:

Unachoweza Kukifanya • •

Dondoo kutoka kwenye ripoti ya MDAs 2004/05

Kipeperushi Hiki Hakiuzwi 25

Mchoro 1: Maoni ya Wakaguzi

25 22

26

Mbaya Enye Dosari Safi

21

20

18 15

15 10 5

2

0 0 Kama inavyooneshwa katika Mchoro 1, kiasi cha 0 theluthi moja ya MDA (15 katika 43) zilipata 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 maoni “Safi” katika 2004/05, 26 zilipata maoni ya “Enye Dosari” na mbili zilipata maoni ya “Mbaya.” Hii inaonesha mabadiliko ukilinganisha na miaka iliyopita ambapo maoni mengi ya “Safi” yaliyotolewa na hakuna maoni ya “Mbaya” yaliyotolewa.

Hakuelekei kuwepo na uhusiano mkubwa kati ya maoni ya wakaguzi wa hesabu na matumizi yenye dosari. Kwa mfano, kama ilivyoonekana hapo juu, Wizara ya Ujenzi ilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya shilingi bilioni 28 - karibu nusu ya matumizi ya uamuzi hiari kwa wizara – na bado ikapata maoni ya “Safi”. Vilevile Mahakama ya Viwanda ilikuwa na shilingi milioni 2.2 tu katika matumizi yenye dosari, au chini ya asilimia 1 tu ya matumizi ya uamuzi hiari na kupata maoni ya “Enye Dosari”. Inasisimua kulinganisha MDA zilizopata maoni “Safi” ya ukaguzi wa hesabu pamoja na kiasi cha matumizi yenye dosari. Inaeleweka kwa wizara sita ambazo hazikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari kupata ripoti “Safi”. Hizi sita zote ni ofisi za ngazi za juu zilizoko katika tawi la utendaji la Serikali na inaweza kuvutia kuangalia sababu za utendaji wao wa kuigwa. Hata hivyo, Ofisi ya Makamu wa Rais, ambayo ilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya zaidi ya shilingi bilioni 3, na Wizara ya Maendeleo ya Jamii na Watoto, ambayo ilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya shilingi milioni 550 pia zilipata ripoti “Safi”. Kuna tofauti kubwa miongoni mwa MDA, baadhi zikipata maendeleo kuhusiana na uwajibikaji kifedha, zingine zikionesha kupungua, na baadhi zikibaki vilevile. Kwa mfano, Mahakama imeoneshwa kuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya shilingi bilioni 1.5 katika 2002/03. Katika 2004/05 matumizi yenye dosari ya Mahakama yalikuwa yameongezeka karibu mara tatu, kufikia shilingi bilioni 4.5. Kwa upande mwingine, Wizara ya Kilimo na Chakula ilishuhudia kupungua kwa matumizi yake yenye dosari kutoka shilingi bilioni 8.5 hadi shilingi milioni 226 kati ya 2003/04 na 2004/05.

4


HakiElimu • PO Box 79401 • Dar es Salaam • Tanzania Tel. (255 22) 2151852 / 3 • Fax (255 22) 2152449 info@hakielimu.org • www.hakielimu.org

Reprinted by: POLICY FORUM

All data is available for download on REPOA’s Tanzania Governance Noticeboard, which can be accessed at www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php. Care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, but the producers of this leaflet are not responsible for typographical or other errors at source. Information herein should be treated with caution and checked against the original reports. For more information and explanation readers should consult the CAG office, P.O. Box 9080, Dar es Salaam, or via e-mail at ocag@nao.or.tz. 1

The information in this leaflet is taken from the Tanzania Governance Noticeboard (TGN) database on the REPOA website. The TGN is a USAID supported project, implemented by REPOA that collates and presents information that is useful for the strengthening of accountability, transparency and integrity in Tanzania. The source of the audit data is the reports of the Controller and Auditor General. Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA) is an independent, non-profit making, Tanzanian NGO, with the mandate to undertake and facilitate research in the area of poverty and related policy issues.

Tanzania Governance Noticeboard at REPOA • • • • • • •

Read this leaflet and share it with others. Discuss and debate. Put up this poster in a public place Learn more! You can download the full audit reports for each district from the Tanzania Governance Notice board (www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php) Advocate for audit reports to be posted on district and ward notice boards Attend the next full council meeting in your district, and ask your councillor to talk about recent audit findings Write a letter to the editor Send your comments to the Government website for the wananchi at www.maoni.org

What You Can Do You have the information. Now it is up to you to make a difference. Use of public funds will improve when people take interest and follow up. Here is a short list of actions you can take. •

Mtwara was also unable to produce delivery notes from the Cashewnut Board of Tanzania to account for the purchase of Tsh 49.7 million worth of cashewnuts (or 1,663 Tonnes worth of nuts).

Kigoma D.C. (Kigoma) purchased equipment worth Tsh 41.6 million for construction of water scheme at Kazuramimba but “no progress report was produced to substantiate implementation of the project.”

In Nzega D.C. (Tabora) Tsh 225 million was paid for development projects that could not be supported by contract documents, implying that the “work executed and cost thereof could not be authenticated.”

Musoma D.C. (Mara) could not account for Tsh 3.3 million in unclaimed salaries, implying that “the salaries might be misappropriated, and hence loss of Public funds.”

In Mtwara D.C. (Mtwara), the transactions of procuring fumigation service, hire of motor vehicle, purchase of receipt books and purchase of hospital equipments did not comply with procurement regulations.

This leaflet presents the findings of CAG Annual Reports for LGAs for the three most recent financial years for which data is publicly available (2002/03, 2003/04, and 2004/05).1 It highlights recent key findings, and compares the findings of the different districts. The purpose is to make this information more broadly available to the public so as to promote understanding, debate and public action. Implementation of this process has been somewhat weak. Audit reports have not been fully debated in Parliament. Significantly there appears to have been little action taken on the audit findings. This may now be changing. Soon after his election, President Kikwete announced that the CAG would be given legal powers to follow up on negative findings. He has also said that public servants found guilty of embezzlement should be handed over to the police to be prosecuted rather than go before administrative tribunals that impose more lenient “disciplinary measures.” LGAs are funded by grants received from the central government, as well as local revenue (taxes paid by people living in the district). This money is meant to pay for services administered at the local level, such as basic education. The Controller and Auditor General (CAG) inspects the accounts of all Government offices on a yearly basis and records instances where the accounts do not give satisfactory explanation of how the money has been spent. The CAG compiles a report for each of the LGAs. These reports are then tabled in the Local Authorities Accounts Committee (LAAC) for deliberation and scrutiny. The LAAC issues recommendations for follow up. This report is then meant to be discussed in open sessions of Parliament and forwarded to the Prime Minister’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government for further action. The Government is currently implementing the Local Government Reform Programme, which aims to reduce poverty by improving service delivery and strengthening governance at the district level. This program puts more power (and money) in the hands of Local Government Authorities (LGAs).

Why this Leaflet?

Findings from Recent Audit Reports

Are Local Governments Managing Money Well?

Njombe D.C. (Iringa) was not able to verify the existence of Tsh 3.2 billion worth of “fixed assets,” including Tsh 3.0 billion for buildings, and Tsh 47 million for a “heavy machine,” and Tsh 172 million for “motor vehicles,” implying that this “could indicate non-existence of the assets and laxity in control over recording of Council’s assets.”

Excerpts from the 2004/05 Reports for LGAs

Understanding the Data The table overleaf presents three indicators from the CAG reports:

Finally, the table shows the auditor’s opinion of each LGA. The auditor’s opinion is a summary evaluation that takes into account all factors considered in the audit report. The auditor’s opinions can fall into one of the following three categories: “Clean,” “Qualified,” or Clean: Accounts are fully satisfactory. “Adverse.” (See box)

Next, the table also shows questioned expenditure as a percentage of the discretionary 3 budget , which helps us compare LGAs with budgets of different sizes.

First, the table shows the sum of selected items of questioned expenditure2 for each LGA for the most recent year. The LGAs are ranked from best to worst performer by this indicator.

For an LGA to be considered fully accountable for the money it spends, it should have low to zero questioned expenditure, and a “Clean” auditor’s opinion.

Qualified: There is a problem with some parts of the accounts. Adverse: The accounts do not give a true picture of the actual situation.

Where Did Fifteen Billion Shillings Go? In 2004/05, the LGAs were unable to account for nearly 15 billion shillings, or 10 percent of their discretionary budgets. Almost one quarter of that money was due to the questioned expenditure of just one LGA, Njombe (which had questioned expenditure of Tsh 3.9 billion in 2004/05). This included a payment of over Tsh 2.2 billion to Tanesco, which the LGA was not able to account for. In addition, several other LGAs had significant amounts of questioned expenditure. Table 1 shows the five LGAs with the highest amount of questioned expenditure in 2004/05. Table 1: LGAs with Highest Questioned Expenditure, 2004/05 Questioned Exp. District (millions of Tsh) 3,853 1,057 563 563 513 6,549

1. Njombe D.C. (Iringa) 2. Nzega D.C. (Tabora) 3. Musoma D.C. (Mara) 4. Kigoma D.C. (Kigoma) 5. Igunga D.C. (Tabora) Total

The total amount of questioned expenditure in 2004/05 increased from about Tsh 12 billion in the previous two years. However, total LGA budgets also increased significantly, so the proportion of questioned expenditure decreased. Still, the overall figure is too high. Only 9 LGAs out of 115 examined reported zero questioned expenditure for 2004/05, five of which in Mbeya region. On the other hand, 31 LGAs had questioned expenditure of over Tsh 100 million each.

Fewer Adverse Opinions Despite the fact that the LGAs have continued to register significant amounts of questioned expenditure, they are doing better in terms of auditors’ opinions. As shown in Figure 1, over half of the LGAs (61 out of 115) received “Clean” opinions in 2004/05, while 50 received “Qualified” opinions and just four received “Adverse” opinions. This is a significant improvement from the previous years.

In recent years there is more sensitivity around “Adverse” opinions, since these affect eligibility for the Local Government Capital Development Grant. There does not appear to be a significant correlation between auditor’s opinions and questioned expenditure. For instance, in 2004/05, Mkuranga D.C. (Pwani) had questioned expenditure of Tsh 275 million, or over one-third of its discretionary budget, but still received a “Clean” report. On the other hand, Mtwara T.C. (Mtwara) had much lower questioned expenditure of Tsh 72 million, or 7 percent of its discretionary budget, but received an “Adverse” opinion.

Figure 1: Auditor’s Opinions, LGAs 70 61 60 50

49

47

48

Adverse Qualified Clean

50

38

40 30

28 20

20 10

4

0 2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

There is wide variation across the LGAs, with some of them registering improvements in terms of financial accountability, others showing declines, and yet others remaining stagnant. For instance, Njombe (Iringa) had questioned expenditure jump from Tsh 69 million to Tsh 3.9 billion between 2003/04 and 2004/05. The auditor’s opinion of this LGA also changed, from “Clean” to “Qualified.” On the other hand, Ileje (Mbeya) had questioned expenditure drop from Tsh 21 million to zero, and its auditor’s opinion changed from “Adverse” to “Clean.” Table 2 shows the districts that received clean reports in all three years. Mtwara D.C. (Mtwara), on the other hand, had a significant amount of questioned expenditure in each of the three years examined and received an “Adverse” opinion in all three years. Table 2: LGAs Receiving “Clean” Opinions in All 3 Years Bukoba D.C. (Kagera) Hai D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Karagwe D.C. (Kagera) Kibaha T.C. (Pwani) Mafia D.C. (Pwani) Makete D.C. (Iringa) Mbeya D.C (Mbeya) Moshi D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Mwanga T.C. (Kilimanjaro) Rombo D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Same D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Tanga M.C (Tanga) Tunduru D.C. (Ruvuma)

Urban vs. Rural LGAs Urban districts generally performed better in terms of questioned expenditure, though not necessarily in terms of auditor’s opinions. Urban LGAs reported questioned expenditure of 4 percent for 2004/05, whereas rural LGAs reported 12 percent. These trends were similar in prior years.

Figures 2 and 3 show the breakdown of auditor’s opinions for rural and urban LGAs. In 2002/03 and 2003/04 urban LGAs tended to receive more favorable auditor’s opinions than did rural LGAs. However in 2004/05, the distribution of auditor’s opinions changed significantly. Many more rural LGAs received “Clean” opinions, whereas relatively fewer urban LGAs did. Figure 3: Auditor’s Opinions, Urban LGAs

Figure 2: Auditor’s Opinions, Rural LGAs

# of councils

55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

53 42

Adverse Qualified Clean

15

14 13

13

40 34

26

36

# of councils

1

2 “Questioned expenditure” refers to expenditure about which the auditor is not satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed, or for which there is insufficient or missing documentation to document that the money has been spent for the correct purpose and that the goods or services have been delivered. The items of questioned expenditure that have been included are “unauthorised expenditure”, “unvouchered expenditure”, “improperly vouchered expenditure”, and “irregular payments”. 3 The discretionary budget is defined here to mean the non-salary budget. It is the sum of total recurrent and development expenditure plus own source revenue minus personnel emoluments (salaries). The discretionary budget gives a better sense of how much money each LGA actually has control over.

# of councils

This Leaflet Is Not For Sale 24 18

Adverse Qualified Clean

10 8

8

8

5 2

2 1

3

0 2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05


HakiElimu • S.L.P 79401 • Dar es Salaam • Tanzania Simu. (255 22) 2151852 / 3 • Faksi: (255 22) 2152449 info@hakielimu.org • www.hakielimu.org

POLICY FORUM imesaidia kuchapisha nakala za ziada

Takwimu zote zilizopo kwenye Ubao wa REPOA wa Matangazo ya Utawala Tanzania zinaweza kupatikana kwenye www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php. Uangalifu umezingatiwa kuhakikisha usahihi wa takwimu hizi lakini watoaji wa kipeperushi hiki hawawajibiki kwa matatizo yoyote ya kimaandishi ya kwenye chanzo. Taarifa zilizomo humu zinapaswa ziangaliwe kwa uangalifu na kuhakikishwa dhidi ya ripoti halisi kwa ajili ya taarifa na maelezo zaidi wasomaji wanapaswa wawasiliane na ofisi ya CAG, SLP 9080, Dar es Salaam au kupitia barua pepe kwenye ocag@nao.or.tz. 1

Taarifa zote katika kipeperushi hiki zimenukuliwa kutoka katika Ubao wa Matangazo ya Utawala Tanzania (TGN) unaopatikana katika tovuti ya REPOA. TGN ni Mradi ambao unafadhiliwa na Shirika la Kutoa Misaada ya Maendeleo la Marekani (USAID) na unatekelezwa na REPOA. Mradi huu hukusanya na kutoa taarifa muhimu za kiutawala kwa lengo la kukuza uwajibikaji, uwazi na uadilifu nchini Tanzania. Chanzo kikuu cha taarifa za ukaguzi ni Ripoti za mwaka za Mdhibiti na Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali. REPOA ni taasisi huru ya kitanzania, isiyokuwa ya kiserikali na isiyolenga kujipatia faida. Jukumu lake ni kufanya utafiti na kuwezesha ufanyikaji wa tafiti katika masuala yanayohusiana na umaskini na sera husika.

Ubao wa Matangazo ya Utawala Tanzania, REPOA.

• • • • • • •

Kisome kipeperushi hiki na ushirikiane na wenzako. Jadiliana na fanya mdahalo. Bango hili liweke mahali wazi Jifunze zaidi! Unaweza kupakua ripoti za ukaguzi wa kila wilaya kutoka kwenye Ubao wa Matangazo wa Utawala wa Tanzania (www.repoa.or.tz/tgn/index.php) Hamasisha ili ripoti za ukaguzi ziwekwe kwenye mbao za matangazo za wilaya na kata. Hudhuria mkutano ujao wa mtaa au halmashauri kamili katika wilaya yako na mwombe diwani wako aongee kuhusu matokeo ya ukaguzi wa hesabu za hivi karibuni. Andika barua kwa mhariri Peleka maoni yako kwenye tovuti ya Serikali kwa ajili ya wananchi kwenye www.maoni.org

Taarifa unayo. Hivyo, ni juu yako kuleta mabadiliko. Matumizi ya fedha za umma yataboreka wakati watu watakapokuwa na shauku na kufuatilia. Ifuatayo ni orodha fupi ya hatua unazoweza kuchukua:

Unachoweza Kukifanya •

Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Musoma (Mara) haikuweza kutoa maelezo ya shilingi milioni 3.3 katika mishahara isiyodaiwa na wenyewe, hii ikimaanisha kwamba “inawezekana mishahara hiyo imetumiwa vibaya, na hivyo kusababisha upotevu wa fedha za umma”.

Katika Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Mtwara (Mtwara) shughuli za manunuzi ya vitabu vya stakabadhi na manunuzi ya vifaa vya hospitali hazikuzingatia kanuni za manunuzi.

Mtwara pia ilishindwa kutoa hati ya kupokea kutoka Bodi ya Korosho ya Tanzania kuthibitisha manunuzi ya korosho yenye thamani ya shilingi milioni 49.7 (au korosho za thamani ya tani 1,663).

Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Kigoma (Kigoma) ilinunua vifaa vyenye thamani ya shilingi milioni 41.6 kwa ajili ujenzi wa mpango wa maji Kuzuramimba lakini “hakuna taarifa ya maendeleo iliyotolewa kuthibitisha utekelezaji wa mradi huo”.

• •

Kipeperushi hiki kinawasilisha matokeo ya Ripoti za Mwaka za CAG kwa ajili ya Mamlaka za Serikali za Mitaa kwa vipindi vya miaka mitatu ya fedha ya hivi karibuni (2002/03, 2003/04, na 2004/05) ambavyo 1 takwimu zake zinapatikana bayana. Kipeperushi kinasisitiza matokeo ya msingi ya hivi karibuni, na kufananisha matokeo ya wilaya mbalimbali. Madhumuni ni kuifanya taarifa hii ipatikane kwa wananchi kwa mapana zaidi ili kukuza uelewano, mjadala na hatua za umma. Kwa kiasi fulani, utekelezaji wa mchakato huu umekuwa dhaifu. Ripoti za ukaguzi wa hesabu hazijapata kujadiliwa kikamilifu katika Bunge. Kiumuhimu, inaelekea kumekuwepo na hatua chache zilizochukuliwa kuhusu matokeo ya ukaguzi wa hesabu. Inawezekana hili likawa linabadilika hivi sasa. Mara tu baada ya uchaguzi huu Rais Kikwete alitangaza kwamba CAG angepewa nguvu zaidi za kisheria kufuatilia matokeo hasi. Pia, amesema kwamba watumishi wa serikali wanaopatikana na hatia ya ubadhirifu wanapaswa wakabidhiwe kwa polisi ili washitakiwe kuliko kupelekwa kwenye mabaraza ya kiutawala ambayo hutoa “hatua za kinidhamu” zilizo na huruma zaidi. LGA au wilaya zinagharamiwa na ruzuku zinazotolewa na serikali kuu, pamoja na mapato yanayotokana na vyanzo mbalimbali katika halmashauri husika (kodi zinazolipwa na watu wanaoishi katika wilaya hiyo). Fedha hizi zimekusudiwa kulipia huduma zinazosimamiwa katika ngazi ya eneo maalumu, kama vile elimu ya msingi. Mdhibiti na Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu au ‘Controller and Auditor General’ (CAG) hukagua hesabu za taasisi zote za Serikali kwa mwaka na kuweka kumbukumbu za hali ambapo hesabu hazitoi maelezo ya kuridhisha ya jinsi ambavyo fedha hizo zimetumika. CAG hukusanya ripoti za kila wilaya. Halafu ripoti hizi huwasilishwa kwa Kamati ya Fedha ya Mamlaka ya Serikali za Mitaa au ‘Local Authorities Accounts Committee’ (LAAC) kwa ajili ya ufuatiliaji. LAAC hutoa mapendekezo kwa ajili ya ufuatiliaji. Halafu, ripoti ya CAG hujadiliwa katika vikao vya wazi vya Bunge na kupelekwa katika Ofisi ya Waziri Mkuu – Tawala za Mikoa na Serikali za Mitaa kwa ajili ya hatua zaidi. Hivi sasa Serikali inatekeleza Mpango wa Mageuzi ya Serikali za Mitaa, ambao unalenga kupunguza umaskini kwa kuboresha utoaji huduma na uimarishaji wa utawala kwenye ngazi ya wilaya. Mpango huu unaweka mamlaka (na fedha) zaidi mikononi mwa Mamlaka za Serikali za Mitaa au ‘Local Government Authories’ (LGA).

Kwa nini kipeperushi hiki?

Matokeo kutoka kwenye Ripoti za Ukaguzi wa Hesabu za Hivi Karibuni

Katika Wilaya ya Nzega (Tabora) shilingi milioni 225 zililipwa kwa ajili ya miradi ya maendeleo ambayo haikuweza kuthibitishwa kwa hati za mikataba, ikimaanisha kwamba “kazi iliyotekelezwa na gharama yake havikuweza kuthibitishwa”.

Je, Serikali za Mitaa Zinasimamia Fedha Vizuri?

Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Njombe (Iringa) haikuweza kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa “mali isiyohamishika” yenye thamani ya shilingi bilioni 3.2 pamoja na shilingi bilioni 3.0 kwa ajili ya majengo na shilingi milioni 47 kwa ajili ya “mashine nzito” na shilingi milioni 172 kwa “ajili ya magari”, ikimaanisha kwamba hili “lingeweza kuashiria kutokuwepo kwa mali hizo na kutokuwa makini katika udhibiti wa uwekaji wa kumbukumbu za mali za Halmashauri”.

Dondoo kutoka kwenye Ripoti za 2004/05 (CAG)

Kipeperushi Hiki Hakiuzwi

Kuzielewa Takwimu Jedwali linawakilisha viashiria vitatu kwenye ripoti za CAG:

Halafu, pia jedwali linaonesha matumizi yenye dosari kama asilimia ya bajeti ya hiari3, ambayo inatusaidia kuzilinganisha wilaya zenye bajeti zenye ukubwa tofauti.

Kwanza, jedwali linaonesha idadi ya jumla ya vipengele vilivyochaguliwa vya matumizi yenye 2 dosari kwa kila wilaya kwa mwaka wa taarifa wa hivi karibuni kabisa. Wilaya zimepangwa na kiashiria kwa ubora kuanza mtendaji bora hadi mbaya kuliko zote.

• Mwisho, jedwali linaonesha maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu kwa kila wilaya. Maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu ni muhtasari wa tathmini ambayo inazing atia vig ezo vyote Safi: Hesabu zinaridhisha kikamilifu vilivyozingatiwa katika ripoti ya ukaguzi wa hesabu. Maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu Enye Dosari: Baadhi ya sehemu za hesabu yanaweza kuangukia katika mojawapo ya zina upungufu aina hizi tatu: “Safi,” “Enye Dosari,” au “Mbaya”. (Tazama kisanduku) Mbaya: Hesabu hazitoi picha ya hali halisi. Ili wilaya iweze kuhesabiwa kuwa imewajibika kikamilifu kwa fedha inazozitumia, inapaswa iwe na matumizi yenye dosari ya kiwango cha chini hadi sifuri, na maoni “Safi” ya mkaguzi wa hesabu.

Shilingi Bilioni Kumi na Tano Zilikwenda Wapi? Katika mwaka 2004/05 wilaya zilishindwa kutoa maelezo ya takriban shilingi bilioni 15, au asilimia 10 ya bajeti ya uamuzi hiari. Karibu robo moja ya fedha hizo zilitokana na matumizi yenye dosari ya wilaya moja tu, Njombe (ambayo ilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya shilingi bilioni 3.9 katika mwaka 2004/05). Hizi zilijumuisha malipo ya zaidi ya shilingi bilioni 2.2 kwa Tanesco, ambazo wilaya ilishindwa kutoa maelezo yake. Jedwali 1: LGA/wilaya zenye viwango vya juu kabisa vya matumizi yenye dosari, 2004/05 Wilaya 1. Njombe D.C. (Iringa) 2. Nzega D.C. (Tabora) 3. Musoma D.C. (Mara) 4. Kigoma D.C. (Kigoma) 5. Igunga D.C. (Tabora) Jumla

Matumizi yenye dosari (Tsh milioni) 3,853 1,057 563 563 513 6,549

Zaidi ya hayo, wilaya nyingine kadhaa zilikuwa na kiasi kikubwa cha matumizi yenye dosari. Jedwali 1 linazionesha wilaya tano zenye viwango vya juu kabisa vya matumizi yenye dosari katika 2004/05. Katika 2004/05, jumla ya matumizi yenye dosari yaliongezeka kutoka shilingi bilioni 12 katika miaka miwili iliyotangulia. Hata hivyo, jumla ya bajeti za wilaya pia iliongezeka kwa kiwango kikubwa, hivyo uwiano wa matumizi yenye dosari ulipungua. Hata hivyo, hesabu ya jumla ni ya juu sana.

Kati ya wilaya 115 zilizotathminiwa ni wilaya 9 tu ndizo zilizopata matumizi yasiyo na dosari kwa kipindi cha 2004/05, ambazo 5 kati yake ziko katika mkoa wa Mbeya. Kwa upande mwingine, wilaya 31 zilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya zaidi ya shilingi milioni 100 kila moja.

Maoni Mabaya Machache Licha ya ukweli kwamba wilaya hizo zimeendelea kupata kiasi kikubwa cha matumizi yenye dosari, zinafanya vizuri zaidi kwa mujibu wa maoni ya Mkaguzi wa hesabu. Kama inavyooneshwa katika Mchoro 1, zaidi ya nusu ya wilaya (61 katika 115) zimepata maoni “Safi” katika 2004/05, ambapo 50 zimepata maoni ya “Enye Dosari” na nne tu ndizo zilizopata maoni ya “Mbaya.” Haya ni maendeleo bayana ikilinganishwa na miaka ya nyuma.

Katika miaka ya hivi karibuni kuna kiwango kikubwa zaidi cha hisi kuhusu maoni ya “Mbaya” kwa vile haya huathiri ustahilifu wa Ruzuku ya Mtaji wa Maendeleo ya Serikali za Mtaa.

Mchoro 1: Maoni ya Wakaguzi Mbaya

70 61 60 50

49

47

48

Enye Dosari Safi

50

Haielekei kuwa na uhusiano bayana kati ya maoni ya 38 40 mkaguzi wa hesabu na matumizi yenye dosari. 28 30 Kwa mfano, Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Mkuranga D.C. 20 20 (Pwani) ilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari yaliyofikia 10 4 shilingi milioni 275 au zaidi ya theluthi moja ya bajeti 0 ya uamuzi hiari, lakini bado ilipata ripoti “Safi”. 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 Kwa upande mwingine, Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Mtwara T.C. (Mtwara) ilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya shilingi milioni 72, au asilimia 7 ya bajeti yake ya uamuzi hiari, lakini kwa maoni ilipata “Mbaya”. Miongoni mwa wilaya hizi kuna tofauti kubwa kati yao. Baadhi zikipata maendeleo mazuri kuhusu uwajibikaji wa kifedha, nyingine zikionesha kushuka na, hata hivyo, nyingine zikionesha mtuwamo. Kwa mfano, Njombe (Iringa) ilikuwa na ongezeko la matumizi yenye dosari kutoka shilingi milioni 69 hadi shilingi bilioni 3.9 kati ya 2003/04 na 2004/05. Maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu kuhusu wilaya hii pia yalibadilika, kutoka “Safi” hadi “Enye Dosari”. Kwa upande mwingine, Ileje (Mbeya) ilipata punguko la matumizi yenye dosari kutoka shilingi milioni 21 hadi sifuri, na maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu yalibadilika kutoka “Mbaya” hadi “Safi”. Jedwali 2 linaonesha wilaya zilizopata ripoti safi katika miaka yote mitatu. Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Mtwara D.C. (Mtwara), kwa upande mwingine, ilikuwa na kiasi kikubwa cha matumizi yenye dosari katika kila mwaka katika miaka yote mitatu iliyotathminiwa na kupata maoni ya “Mbaya” katika miaka yote mitatu. Jedwali 2: LGA zilizopata ripoti “Safi” katika miaka yote 3 Bukoba D.C. (Kagera) Hai D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Karagwe D.C. (Kagera) Kibaha T.C. (Pwani) Mafia D.C. (Pwani) Makete D.C. (Iringa) Mbeya D.C (Mbeya) Moshi D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Mwanga T.C. (Kilimanjaro) Rombo D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Same D.C. (Kilimanjaro) Tanga M.C (Tanga) Tunduru D.C. (Ruvuma)

Wilaya za Mijini na za Vijijini

Kwa ujumla, wilaya za mijini zilifanya vizuri kuhusiana na matumizi yenye dosari, ingawa si kuhusiana na maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu. Wilaya za mijini zilikuwa na matumizi yenye dosari ya asilimia 4 kwa mwaka 2004/05, ambapo wilaya za vijijini zilikuwa na asilimia 12. Mielekeo hii ilifanana katika miaka ya nyuma. Mchoro wa 2 na wa 3 zinaonesha mchanganuo wa maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu kwa wilaya za vijijini na mijini. Katika 2002/03 na 2003/04 wilaya za mijini zilipata ripoti nzuri zaidi ya mkaguzi wa hesabu kuliko wilaya za vijijini. Hata hivyo, katika 2004/05 mgawanyo wa maoni ya mkaguzi wa hesabu ulibadilika sana. Wilaya nyingi zaidi za vijijini zilipata ripoti “Safi” ambapo upande wa wilaya za mijini ulikuwa na punguo. Mchoro 2: Maoni ya Wakaguzi, LGA za Vijijini

# ya wilaya

2 “Matumizi yenye dosari” ni kuhusu matumizi ambayo mkaguzi wa hesabu za fedha hakuridhika kwamba taratibu sahihi zimefuatwa, au matumizi ambayo yana hati zisizotosheleza au zinazokosekana kuthibitisha kwamba fedha zimetumika kwa madhumuni sahihi na kwamba bidhaa au huduma zimetolewa. Vipengele vya matumizi yenye dosari ambavyo vimejumlishwa na “matumizi yasiyoidhinishwa”, “matumizi yasiyo na hati za malipo”, na “malipo yasiyo ya kawaida”. 3 Bajeti ya hiari inaainishwa kama bajeti isiyo ya mishahara. Ni jumla ya idadi ya matumizi ya kawaida na matumizi ya maendeleo jumlisha ya mapato ya chanzo chako mwenyewe kutoa mishahara. Bajeti ya uamuzi wa hiari hutoa hali nzuri zaidi ya kiasi gani hasa cha fedha kila LGA kina udhibiti nacho.

# ya wilaya

55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

42

53

Mchoro 3: Maoni ya Wakaguzi, LGA za Mijini

Mbaya Enye Dosari Safi

15

14 13

13

Mbaya Enye Dosari Safi

40 34

26

36

# ya wilaya

1

24 18

10 8

8

8

5 2

2 1

3

0 2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05


Audit Report Leaflets