The Auditor General has flagged over 5 Billion expenditure in Machakos County in the 2022/2023 Financial Year Audit Report.
The statement of cash flows reflects a comparative decrease in cash and cash equivalents
of 659 Million while the audited financial statements reflect an increase of
356 Million resulting in an unreconciled and unexplained difference of 1 Billion.
The county financial statement reflected amounts of Kshs.1,400,609,381, Kshs.1,851,025,447, and Kshs.1,387,309,122 which were at variance with IFMIS amount of Kshs.737,356,541, Kshs.170,471,256, and Kshs.1,669,211,333 under the use of goods and services, transfer to other Government entities, and acquisition of assets respectively resulting in an unexplained variance of Kshs.663,252,840, Kshs.1,680,554,191 and Kshs.281,902,211, respectively.
On the compensation of employees, the Auditor General reported a 401 million unexplained variance between integrated personnel and payroll database and manual data. Further, some county executive staff had identical names but different payroll numbers.
“Financial statements reflects bank balances of Kshs.1,916,198,744 and Nil cash in hand.
However, an audit review of financial records revealed that the disclosed bank balance
related to only 18 bank accounts. However, 245 bank accounts with a balance of Kshs.225,474,286 as of 30 June 2023 were not disclosed in the financial statements.”The Auditor General in the report said.
The auditor further raised concerns of over 7.9 million issued as imperests despite the beneficiaries failing to account for the previous imperest 7 days after returning to duty station. This is in contravention of Regulation 93 of the Public Finance Management Act. Further, imprest amounting to Kshs.936,400 was inadequately supported with back-to-office reports, and impress worth Kshs.16,382,570 had not been recorded in the Imprest
Register.
The report also questioned 14 million paid out in the form of task force allowances to Machakos pending bills verification and audit task force, misclassification and non-remittance of pension and other social security scheme deductions, pending bills of 3.5 billion, and the county spending a meager 13 percent on development way below the 30 percent threshold.
A deal between the county government and a consultant to surrender 1.5 percent of total revenue collected annually has also been questioned. According to the Auditor General, The clause on revenue sharing was against the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012. Further, the consultant was paid an amount of 25 Million on 22 May 2023 being
1.5 percent of revenue collected during the period. However, no supporting documents by way of a payment voucher was provided.
The Auditor General raises queries over the omission of fuel, oil, and lubricants, 67 Million unsupported expenditures, 678 Million unexplained misclassification of expenditures, unauthorized payment of 110 Million to KRA, non-compliance of a third basic pay rule, non-conformity with the law on recruitment of persons with disabilities, irregular promotion of staff who lacked academic qualification.
