The Office for the Audit of the Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the first of the four supreme audit institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina to conduct a financial audit for 2024. In three cycles, 73 reports were published. The only unpublished report was the one on the Intelligence and Security Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has not had a full financial audit conducted in 25 years, nor has any report been made available to the public, which is why the Office regularly issues a qualified opinion to this institution.
Of the 73 audited institutions, 63 received a positive rating for both components – financial statements and compliance with the law. However, a larger number of opinions draw attention to certain irregularities. Eight institutions received a positive rating for one of the components of the financial audit, and a qualified opinion for the other, while two institutions have a qualified opinion for both components.
For years, auditors have been drawing attention to the same things in their reports, a former auditor tells us. Despite this, the institutions do not implement the recommendations.
“The implementation of recommendations is extremely low, around 50 percent, while in EU countries it is at a much higher level. Why this is happening – first of all, the attitude of the legislative authority, which does not initiate all irregularities that are foreseen by law in order to seek accountability and those who do not comply with the recommendations. Of the ten institutions that received qualified reports, in seven they are actually the basis for qualification of irregularities established in the domain and application of the Law on Public Procurement, so certain recommendations were given there as well,” says former auditor at the Audit Office of BiH Dževad Nekić.
Transparency International points out that there are smaller irregularities at the state level than at the entity levels.
“So, we have a situation where numerous recommendations are repeated year after year, that they are completely ignored. The key reason is – there is no political culture here and no one will bear political responsibility for a negative audit report,” believes Srđan Traljić from TIBiH.
To numerous inquiries to institutions that expressed a qualified opinion, only the Agency for Identification Documents responded. They state that they submitted their statements to the Audit Office on time. The responses referred to parts of the report that the Office assessed as non-compliant. The Agency states that their explanations were not taken into account before the report was published.
Photo: Illustration
