Independence of the state audit institution (SAI)

The constitution ensures the independence of the SAI

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 1. Review of the constitution to ensure it provides for the independence of the SAI and the head of the SAI (and the members of the SAI, if relevant).

The legal framework provides adequate protection by a supreme court against any interference with the SAI’s independence and audit mandate

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 7. Review of the SAI law and other relevant legislation against the key requirements of INTOSAI P-10 using the SAI independence checklist.

There has been no removal of the head or members of the SAI for reasons not specified in the legal framework, and not without following due legal process, in the past three years

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 9. Interviews with the SAI senior management and review of relevant parliamentary or government decisions.

The last appointment of the head of the SAI was carried out according to the legal framework, which requires the appointment process to be conducted independently from the executive

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 10. Based on good practice examples of GUID 9030, appointment process includes (but is not limited to) appointment by: - the legislature - the head of the state (not the government) with the approval of legislature

The head of the SAI was appointed for a sufficiently long and fixed term allowing to carry out the mandate without fear of retaliation

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 11. Standards do not define specifically a sufficiently long and fixed term. It was established through practice that this should be a minimum of 5 years, and preferably it should be one single term of over 7 years but no more than 15 years. Review the legal framework to confirm the appointment term of the head of the SAI and whether it is for single non-renewable term. Review of the appointment decisions (by the legislature or head of state) to confirm it is in line with the legal framework.

The executive (e.g., MoF) did not directly control or provide direction over the formulation of the SAI’s budget

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 13. Review of the legal framework and interviews with the SAI senior management to confirm how it has been applied in practice. Review of relevant organisational, budgetary and financial documents.

The executive (e.g., MoF) did not control or provide direction over how the SAI uses its financial resources and executes its budget after its approval by the parliament

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 14. Review of the legal framework and interviews with the SAI senior management to confirm how it has been applied in practice. Review of relevant organisational, budgetary and financial documents.

The SAI is free from undue direction or interference from the legislature or the executive in the organisation and management of its office

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management, sub-indicator 31.1.1., criterion 15. Organisational and managerial independence should include the ability of the SAI to determine its organisational structure and make individual recruitment decisions.

Perception of SAI independence by civil service (%)

Analysis of survey responses from a sample of public servants who know the work of the supreme audit institution to the following statement: “To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The supreme audit institution carries out its work and activities independently of the government”. Answer options are: Strongly disagree, Tend to disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Tend to agree, Strongly agree, Do not know, Prefer not to answer. Points are allocated based on the percentage of “Tend to agree” and “Strongly agree” responses to the survey question (x): • x < 10% = 0 points. • 10% ≤ x < 90% = linear function. • x ≥ 90% = 3 points.