Essay: Achieving Accountability in Public Financial Management in Nigeria

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The democratic convulsions and delu”sions evident in Nigeria since May 1999 when military government handover to civilian’s government presented a worrisome dimension to the crisis of de”velopment in the country and the manifestation in the flight of transparency and accountabil”ity in governance. Accordingly, democracy -promotes competitive struggle with so many essential elements and attributes. In view of this, democracy has at least 10 es-sential elements which includes but not restricted to the right of choice; empowerment and equality; freedom from ignorance; promotion and defence of human rights; and accountability of leadership to the people among others (Onuorah & Appah, 2012). Characteristics of genuine democracy espoused by identifying re”sponsiveness of the ‘government to preferences of its citizen’ in which case, the constituent peoples of a given soci”ety must have an unimpaired and unhin”dered opportunity to formulate their preferences; signify their preferences to their fellow citizen and the government by individual and collective actions and have their preferences weighted equally in the conduct of the government, that is weighed with no discrimination be”cause of the content or source of the preferences. Ukaogo, (2013) opined that democracy indentified three constitutive elements. In this ‘regard, democracy is a system of government that meets three essential conditions, meaningful and extensive compe”tition among individuals and groups for all effective position of gov-ernmental power, at regular inter”vals and excluding the use of force, a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selec”tion of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair election, such that no major social group is excluded; and a level of civil and political liberties: freedom of the press, freedom to form and join organisations sufficient to ensure the integrity of political competi”tion and participation. Okoh and Ohwoyibo (2009) opine that accountability reflects the need for government and its agencies to serve the public effectively in accordance with the laws of the land.
Appah (2010), pointed out that with the number and monetary value of public sector activities has increased substantially. This increase in activities has brought with it an increased demand for accountability of public officers who manage these activities of the public. Kaufman (2005) argues that an emphasis on accountability by citizens is one aspect of the growing emphasis on eliminating corruption and promoting transparency in government. However, the issue of accountability in Nigeria is a fundamental problem because of the high level corruption in all levels of government in the country.
The origin of auditing and accountability dates back to the ancient Greek, Egyptian civilisations, Biblical precept and with the emergence of large ‘ stock organisations in the eighteenth century, and the consequent separation of control from ownership, the need to have an independent third party opinion on the stewardship report of management to owners, became more expedient. Achua (2009) says;
Serious consideration is being given to the need to be more accountable for the often vast amounts of investment in resources at the command of governments, which exercise administrative and political authority over the actions and affairs of political units of people.
In recent years on account of Nigeria’s institutionalised corruption, misappropriation and mismanagement, economic opportunity have all but withered away in the public sector and has generated a lot of distrust among the people towards the government and sudden collapse of social-economic system and the subsequent implications of the reports. It is better to prevent an epidemic rather than cure. It is also better to prevent corruption, misappropriation and mismanagement rather than detect it, if all menace are allowed to be committed before detecting it, the overall effect will merely be a post-mortem exercise which may hardly result to complete recovery of the loss. Accountability is also important for government. It provides government with the means of understanding how programs may fail and finding ways that can make programmes perform better.
1.2 Statement of the Research Problem
Different variant situations emerged when the accountability, transparency and probity of government functions and the public expectation differs from electioneers promises.
According to Ikazobor (2009), government stewardship or auditing should play a vital and direct role in establishing good reporting system which supposed to enhance transparency and accountability in governance. The expectation of the electorate from public office holders in terms of dividends of democracy had long been eroded and irrespective of what the audit report may reflect.
. Does transparency and accountability in politics run counter to the interest of electorate?
Is the rule of the majority good for Edo State people?
“Mixed Method of Study of the Effects of Corruption on Democracy in Emergent Societies: the case of Edo State”.
1.3 Objective of the Study
The major purpose of this study is to provide evidence on the existence of accountability expectation gap in public sector in Edo State, by investigating the perception of selected stakeholders. In order to achieve this aim, the study seeks to;
i. to ascertain the existence of expectation gap in public sector accountability process in Edo State;
ii. to examine the perceptions of respondent groups on the existing duties and responsibilities of government in providing dividend of democracy; and
iii. to investigate the extent of reliance and compliance with the constitution and other laws of governance governing decision making processes.
1.4 Research Question
The study is designed to provide answers to the following research questions:
Does expectation gap exist in public sector accountability process in Edo state and to what extent?
To what extent do respondents’ perception on the existing duties and responsibilities of government differ?
To what level do the respondent groups rely on audited financial report to access government performance and making viable judgement?
In what ways can the expectation gap be minimized? Is democracy the best system of Government?
1.5 Research Hypotheses.
The following hypotheses were tested in order to provide answers to the aforementioned research questions:
H1: There is a significant difference in the perception of respondent groups on the existing duties, responsibilities and accountability in Edo State.
H2: There is significant difference between the perceptions of respondent groups rely on government audited financial reports in measuring their performance.
H3: There is significant difference in the perception of the respondent groups on the existence of expectation gap in public sector accountability process in Edo state.
1.6 Scope of the Study
This study is motivated by the current level of corruption, mismanagement, project mismatch, misappropriation and the state of the infrastructural decades in Nigeria as a result of government failure to deliver on their electioneering promises. Therefore, the perceptions of selected stakeholders were sought in providing answers to the questions raised in the study. For the purpose of this study, the stewardship, duties and responsibilities of government as defined by 1999 Constitution and International Public Sector Auditing Standards (IPSAS)’ matters to be expressly stated in finding solution to question raised by considering duties and responsibilities of government as defined by other regulatory bodies are to be considered. The focus of the research in terms of study groups involves auditors, accountants and consultants, Students, Teachers, Trade Union, Civil societies group, all opposition political parties and the general public.
1.7 Significance of the Study
The Government responsibilities in Nigeria have been under intense pressure due to rising public expectations. This study will help to ascertain the magnitude of the expectation gap that exists between the government and the public and to recommend ways on breaching/filling the gap.
This is to evaluate the roles basically which public office holders is playing in financial transparency, accountability and to provide evidence on the extent to which accountability expectation gap exist in Edo State and the perception of respondent groups on existing duties and responsibilities of political office holders.
The findings of this study would serve as reference point for further research works relating to accountability expectation gap in the Public sector.
1.8 Limitation to the Study
Problems associated with this study are non-availability of relevant information from authoritative sources coupled with completion and returns of the questionnaires. The degree of in-depth research done in this study should not be seen as exhaustive. It is relatively in-depth, given that the researcher could not really avoid the constraints, but had to grapple with the problems posed by this constraint.
CHAPTER TWO
2.1 Literature Review
That there is a serious problem of accountability and transparency in the public service is not only well known but fairly documented. General and specific observations within the service and comments from international bodies like World Bank (WB), Transparency international (TI), all seem to suggest that the problem is not only real but also enduring, (Aruwa,2003). Accountability and transparency is essentially entrusted with the task of providing the basic necessities of life, reporting reality in financial statements and this reality is what the users of accounting information expect (Mahdi, Ali, & Zhila, 2009).The concept governance role emphasizes the fact that people at work are in a sense, always acting a part; they are not simply reciting the lines but interpreting them in terms of their own perception of how they should behave in relation to the context in which they work especially with regard to their interactions with other people that may be affected by their performance.Government spending is a very big business and the public demands to know whether the huge outlays of money are being spent wisely for public interests. Accountability is a fundamental value for any political system. Citizens should have the right to know what actions have been taken in their name, and they should have the means to force corrective actions when government acts in an illegal, immoral, or unjust manner (Peters, 1999). Accountability is also important for government. It provides government with the means of understanding how programs may fail and finding ways that can make programmes perform better. Prospective investors and the governed also rely on the auditor’s opinion as a guide to making appraisal and assessment of the government policies, and programmes, investment and viable decisions. With increasing reliance on the auditor’s report, came also, increased expectations of what the auditor’s report should reveal.
However, the performance may not check out the reality and this reality may fall short of user’s (electoral) expectations. This shortfall in audit effectiveness is broadly labelled as accountability expectation gap (AEG). Baker (2002) argues that public confidence in a group of professionals is the ‘Living heart” of the profession. Hence if such confidence is betrayed, the professional function will too be destroyed, since it becomes useless. The failures and scandals revealed huge accounting fraud and corporate abuses which were not reported in the auditors’ reports. The spate of corporate failure, financial scandals and electioneers promises failures has led to a significant increase in criticism and litigation against some functionary. Godsell (1992) opined that these entire phenomenons may be due to common beliefs that the stakeholders of the state should be able to rely on its reports card (audited accounts) as a guarantee of its infrastructural development, social-economic and business viability of the government. Therefore, if it transpires, without any warning that the state is in serious financial difficulty, it is widely believed that the government in place should be made accountable for these financial failures. Godsell, Almer and Brody (2002), assert that a public financial corruption is always interpreted as a performance and audit failure in spite of the level of procedures and tests performed by the regulatory agencies in detecting fraud and mismanagement in the public sector in Edo state. They further claims that an audit assessment should be carry out in accordance with the 1999 Constitution, legislative and Judicial guidelines ,International Public Sector Accounting Standards(IPSAS), rules and regulations and still be found negligent in not preventing risks to financial statement users.
Hence it is shown that the nature and objective of performance and auditing have been perceived differently by users and those misperceptions are known as the ‘accountability expectation gap’ Oghuma (2011).
Expectation gap is the difference between what the public and other financial statement users perceive government responsibilities to be and what their responsibilities entail (McGnioe &Martens, 2001). It is assumed that electorate and users of financial statements have a different perception of the term ‘accountability, transparency and audit’ (Beelde, Cooper & Leydens 2005).
Reiter and Williams (2000) are of the view that the audit expectation gap refers to the public’s expectation that companies with ‘unqualified’ audit opined, hence a true and fair view of the financial statement, should be free of financial fraud and short ‘ term risks of business failure. The occurrence of series of corporate failures, financial scandals and audit failures and their subsequent impact on the public and the accounting profession are seeking for mechanism to ensure reliable, high quality financial reporting has largely focused on narrowing the audit expectation gap. The Constitution, Legislature, Judiciary, EFCC,ICPC and all other government regulatory agencies and including accounting profession(IPSAS) has been proactive in attempting to make sure that, government improve accountability, transparency and probity in providing quality services to the public. As a result, there has been a concerted effort to devise ways of enhancing or forcing government to act within the confirm of the law (Corporate Governance Code of Nigeria, 2005). In private sector, Sikka, Puxty, Willmott and Cooper (2003) highlighted that the audit expectation gap is a detrimental issue to the auditing profession as ‘the greater the gap of expectation the lower the credibility, earning potential and prestige associated with the auditors ‘work’. They also believed that the audit expectation gap is harmful to the public, investors and politicians as in a capitalist economy, the process of wealth creation and political stability depend heavily upon the confidence in the processes of accountability and transparency. The public verifying the financial statements are considered to be very germane part as auditing and credibility to those financial statements. Hence, to mitigate the litigation and accusation against the auditors, and more importantly, to restore public confidence in the financial reporting process and audit functions, the audit expectation gap should be eliminated, if not significantly reduced. The existence of this gap has been caused by many factors communication factors and audit failures). In this changing world, the person requires that auditor’s responsibilities be increased to include fraud detection / prevention.
In the vain, accountability expectation gap is a detrimental issue to the government as ‘the greater the gap of expectation the lower the credibility, popularity of the political party and prestige associated with the government ‘work’. They also believed that the accountability and transparency expectation gap is harmful to the public, investors and politicians as in a capitalist economy, the process of wealth creation and political stability depend heavily upon the confidence in the processes of accountability and transparency.Good governance, therefore, depends on the extent to which government is perceived and accepted as legitimate, committed to improving the public welfare, responsive to the needs of its citizens, competent to assure law and order and deliver public services, create an enabling policy environment for productive activities and equitable in its conduct,(Kabir,2013).
2.1.1 Components of the Expectation Gap.
Porter (1993) proposes that the expectation gap should be structured in a more extensive way which allows the different components of the accountability expectation gap to be identified. In addition, its claim that it is more appropriate to name the expectation gap ‘the accountability expectation’performance gap’ as it represent the gap between society’ perceptions of government’s performance and the component are:
Deficient Standards: This is the gap between what can reasonably be expected of government and government existing duties as defined by the law and professional promulgation.
Unreasonably expectations: Is the difference between what the public /electorate expect government to achieve and what they can reasonably be expected to accomplish.
The expectations gap is an issue for government as a greater ‘expectation gap’ would lead to lower credibility, popularity and prestige associated with their work/office. It is also on issue for the public and investors in particular since wealth creation and political stability in a capitalist economy depends significantly on confidence and accountability and government supposed to provide such confidence and accountability the people.
2.1.2 Factors Contributing to the Accountability Expectation Gap.
Complicated nature of Government function and corruption: The general public poor understanding of the complicated government function is likely to contribute towards the existence of an accountability expectation gap. Lee and Azham (2008) opined that the complexity of government could be due to the fact that the objective of accountability, transparency and good governance, auditing and the role of government have always been a dynamic rather than static one. This is because they are highly influenced by contextual factors such as the socio ‘ economic environment of a particular period, political structures, the critical historical events that have taken place (e.g. the level of corruption, misappropriation and mismanagement), the verdict of the court, and technological developments (e.g. advancement of computing systems). Therefore, any major changes in these contextual factors are likely to cause a change in governance. In addition, the lack of understanding among members of the public may be due to the subjective nature of terms and concepts in governance such as the true and fair representation, reasonable, materiality, adequacy, reliability and relevance (Humphrey, 1997).
Conflicting Role of Auditors: Coram, Cosserat and Gill (2007) pointed out that presently accounting firms have diversified by providing a wide range of series and prudent to clients at the same time, e.g. as advisor to the government and independent auditor to the public. Hence, auditors are likely to be in a conflicting position because the public expects the auditor to identify and report all problems with the financial statements while government expects the auditors to manipulation of financial statement which is suitable to them. And most often the auditor in question may belong to the same political party in government; as such the auditor will always compromise its reports.
Retrospective Evaluation of government Performance: The accusation crisis of the performance may be due to the fact that society does not have the ability to evaluate the quality of services and the performance of the government. The measure of quality representative comes from subsequent events that demonstrate that government could not performed at an acceptable level for a particular dispensation.
Time Lag in responding to changing expectation: This pointed out that an expectation gap may occur as a result of time lags between the government identifying and responding to continually changing and expanding public expectations. Actions are only taken by the relevant authorities after critical events occur. Hence, the electorate has taken a ratter retrospective approach in ensuring governments’ performance and of which the government regulatory agencies should have put in place a mechanized to prevent such manipulations.
Self ‘ Regulation Process of the Government: This asserted that the potential danger which exists with a self ‘ regulating profession or body is the lack of incentive to provide a service at a level of quality that exceeds the minimum level that the public will accept. This implies that government are likely to compromise the quality of electioneering promises at the expense of the electorate by uniting their nefarious work in order to maximise their personal interest.
The unawareness and unreasonable expectation: Lee and Azham (2008) associated expectation gap problems with the misconception of the nature, purpose and capacities of government functions. The ignorance and naivety of the public are likely to cause unreasonable expectation being imposed on the duties of the government because most often, the electorate may fails to acknowledge their own responsibility for not holding their respective representative accountable for resources bequeathed.
Political Party Interference and lack of manifestoes: Political party do interfere in the process of governance by instructing, manipulating and engaging in persuasive maximization for their selfish interest, so giving room for bad policies and wrong financial information. In Nigeria, there are indications that the institution of governance at all levels is entangled in a web of public distrust and declining public confidence (Natufe, 2006; Abati, 2006). Elaigwu (2002) notes that there is a big gap between the rhetoric’s of transparency and accountability on the one hand and demonstrable commitment to values in the actions of the political actors, on the other hand. In another perspective, Onyegbula (2000) has pointed out that optimistic expectations from government have all been dashed with the increasing loss of accountability even in the midst of a representative democracy. The trend is worsened by the wide gap between government official pronouncements and actions. In the light of the above, there is a need to investigate the nexus between citizens’ perception of government accountability and compliance with their political programmes.
Electorate Process Manipulation: Most often elections are conducted based on demerit from the political party primary to actual election. Hence the elected political office holders are not accountable to the people rather to one individual (Godfather).Rigging and all other form of electorate manipulation paved way for lack of transparency and accountability which transformed into accountability expectation gap.
Form and Content of Accountability
By the nature of accountability, all those who have any role to play at any point in organizational process should carry the responsibility to account for action for their thinking (United Nation Development Programe, UNDP 1996). Furthermore, accountability is enhance by the extent to which the duty to answer is discharge. Oral representation or verbal account of action represent the minimum and wicked form in the discharge for accountability, it become strengthened and even stronger if account is documented in written and back by supporting document to evidence claims in the account.
The form and content of accountability is further enhanced by procedural influences such as timeliness (or report authentication and communication) as well as the process (details of form and content). Accountability and transparency are inseparable. The mutually reinforcing transparency is worthless if it does not match appropriate accountability for use of discretion; and accountability is meaningless if it does not spring from transparent medium .Four important criteria are regarded as basic to public service accountability. These include Fiscal accountability, Managerial accountability, Programme accountability and Individual accountability (UNDP, 1996). Fiscal accountability is concerned with adherence to applicable laws and regulations, consistency with appropriate accounting principles and traditions, accuracy and fairness of reports; and complete legitimacy of expenditure. Managerial accountability deals with the generation of essential information for decision making, and the need for economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of operations. Programme accountability is broadly concerned with overall evaluation of programme impact and the extent to which intended goals and aspirations are attained. Individual accountability is related to the personal qualities and conduct demonstrated by accountable officers, it involves such attributes as commitment, honesty, trust, probity and integrity. It is held that individual accountability enhances overall transparency (UNDP, 1996).It is also useful to note that the foregoing criteria serve to define the dimensions of accountability. The existence of procedures and regulations; the maintenance of adequate records and books of account, prompt generation of credible reports, the compliance with every pertinent provision or personal quality of moral and financial rectitude cannot singularly ensure accountability. All have to go concurrently. The level of accountability and transparency in the public service has serious implications for economic and social development. The capacity for efficient service delivery also depends on the honesty and integrity of the public service. The extent to which each element of accountability has to be strengthened to provide necessary and sufficient inducement for strong accountability should form the primary concern of such improvement. Accountability structures help to reflect the preferences of the public as citizens and consumers in the public realm. Accountability also serves as a quality control device. Public accountability is the requirement that those who hold public trust account for the use of that trust to citizens or their representatives. It underscores the superiority of the public will over private interest for those engaged in the provision and delivery of services to the general public.
Accountability requires that those who hold positions of public trust should account for their performance to the public or their duly elected representatives. Accountability, therefore, implies that decision makers are monitored by, and are responsible to, others, each of whom is, in turn, responsible to the people of the country. In respect of public financial management, there are at least three independent and essential mechanisms through which accountability is enforced. Importantly, Part III of the Charter on the Public Service in Africa on Rules Governing Relation between the Public Service and the citizens contain many provisions which make it obligatory for the Public Service to render services to the public efficiently and effectively with due diligence to the rights of the customers. This service charter forms the basis for measuring effectiveness in terms of quality and timely delivery of services in the public service. The Charter also spells out the mandate areas of the organization, its range of customers, the rangeservices provided, quality expectations, schedules and time of delivery, avenues for lodging complaints and of seeking redress, among others (Chukwuebuka &Chidubem, 2011). Particularly, Article 21 of the Charter deals on the behavioural conduct of a public servant. It states that professionalism resides in how skillfully and how well a public service employee performs his/her functions and duties and that it also manifests itself in employee’s behaviour at work and in her/her constant effort to improve, reinforce and update his/her knowledge, refine the skills that are necessary for carrying out his/her tasks and enhancing his/her output and productivity (Adegoroye, 2005). Four important criteria are regarded as basic to accountability. These are fiscal, managerial, programme and individual accountability. Fiscal or financial accountability is concerned with adherence to applicable laws, rules and regulations, consistency with appropriate principles, concepts and conventions; accuracy and fairness of reports and legitimacy of expenditure. Managerial accountability deals with the generation of essential information for decision-making and the need for economy, efficiency and effectiveness of operations (Omopariola, 1991). Programme accountability is primarily concerned with the overall evaluation of programme impact and the extent to which intended goals and aspirations are attained. Individual accountability is related to personal qualities and conduct demonstrated by accountable officers. It involves such attributes as commitment, honesty, trust, probity and integrity. Transparency is the art of doing things in the open without any secrecy so that everything is known and understood by everybody. It goes without saying, therefore, that individual accountability does enhance overall transparency. In fact, accountability and transparency are Siamese twins. They are inseparable. They interact and overlap. It is impossible to be transparent without being accountable and it is impossible to be accountable when one is not transparent (Omopariola, 2002). Transparency on the other hand is the openness of government activity to the members of the public. It can also be defined as an ethical concept implying openness, honesty and forthrightness in official dealings and relationship. It is the negation of corruption and unwholesome practices in the public service (Adebayo, 2004).
Transparency is a moral virtue, which stresses sincerity, truthfulness and openness. Since operators in the public sector are trustees in a sense, they necessarily must be honest; otherwise the electorate lose confidence in the government. The financial authorities guiding Public Sector Accounting and Financial Management in Nigeria provide a legal basis for financial management in the public sector and ought to strengthen the financial management function within government,-its ministries, departments and agencies. This is intended to ensure accountability and transparency,(Ugwoke & Onyeanu, 2013)
Accountability is all about being answerable to those who have invested their trust, faith, and resources to you. Adegite (2010) defined accountability as the obligation to demonstrate that work has been conducted in accordance with agreed rules and standards and the officer reports fairly and accurately on performance results vis-”-vis mandated roles and or/plans. It means doing things transparently in line with due process and the provision of feedback. Johnson (2004) says that public accountability is an essential component for the functioning of our political system, as accountability means that those who are charged with drafting and/or carrying out policy should be obliged to give an explanation of their actions to their electorate. Premchand (1999) observed that thecapacity to achieve full accountability has been and continues to be inadequate, partly because of the design of accountability itself and partly because of the widening range of objectives and associated expectations attached to accountability. He further argues that if accountability is to be achieved in full, including its constructive aspects, then it must be designed with care. The objective of accountability should go beyond the naming and shaming of officials, or the pursuit of sleaze, to a search for durable improvements in economics management to reduce the incidence of institutional recidivism. The future of accountability consists in covering the macro aspects of economic and financial sustainability, as well as the micro aspects of service delivery. It should envisage a three-tier structure of accountability of official (both political and regular civil employees), that of intragovernmental relationships and that between government and their respective legislatures.
Performance Based Accountability
This approach measures performance against broad objectives. This measure may be qualitative and the criteria against which performance is measured less precisely defined. Adegite (2010) also noted that there are three pillars of accountability, which the UNDP tagged ATI (Accountability, Transparency and Integrity).Accountability which is segmented into:
(1) Financial Accountability: The obligation of any one handling resources, public office or any other positions of trust, to report on the intended and actual use of the resources or of the designated office.
(2) Administrative Accountability: This type of accountability involves a sound system of internal control, which complements and
ensures proper checks and balances supplied by constitutional government and an engaged citizenry. These include ethical codes, criminal penalties and administrative reviews.
(3) Political Accountability: This type of accountability fundamentally begins with free, fair and transparent elections. Through periodic elections and control structure, elected and appointed officials are held accountable for their actions while holding public office.
(4) Social Accountability: This is a demand driven approach that relies on civic engagement and involves ordinary citizens and groups exacting greater accountability for public actions and outcomes.
Ojoakor (2009) argues that the factors and forces which militate against accountability in Nigeria include ethnicity and tribalism, corruption, religious dichotomy and military culture.
2.1.5 Public Financial Management in Nigeria.
Public financial management is concerned with the planning, organizing, procurement and utilization of government financial resources as well as the formulation of appropriate policiesin order to achieve the aspirations of members of that society. Premchand (1999) sees public financial management as the link between the community’s aspirations with resources, and the present with future. It lies at the very heart of the operations and fiscal policy of government.The stages of public financial management include:
1. Policy formulation: Policy formulation is one of the most important stages in public financial management structure. According to Premchand (1999), ‘the transformation of the society’s aspirations into feasible policies with well-recognized financial implications is at the heart of financial management. Issues not addressed during policy formulation tend to grow in magnitude during implementation and may frequently contribute to major reversals in the pursuit of policies or major slippages that may lead to contrary results’. Public financial management should be designed to achieve certain micro and macroeconomic policies. It entails a clearly defined structured and articulated system that moves to promote cost-consciousness in the use of resources. The government needs to have an estimate of revenue and expenditure to achieve the policy objective of government.
2. Budget formulation: The budget formulation is the step that involves the allocation of resources before the submission to the legislature for review and final approval. According to Appah (2009), in Nigeria the budget formulation involves the articulation of the fiscal, monetary, political, economic, social and welfare objectives of the government by the President; based on these, (i) the department issues policies and guidelines which form the basis of circulars to Ministries/Departments requesting for inputs and their needs for the ensuring fiscal periods; (ii) accounting officers of responsibility units are required to obtain and collate the needs of their units; and (iii) accounting officers of ministries, in this case the Permanent Secretaries, are required to collate these proposals which would be defended by unit heads before the supervising minister or commissioner.
3. Budget structures: According to Anyanwu (1997), budget structure addresses the question of how the budget is or should be composed. In Nigeria, budgets have revenues and expenditure sides. According to Prenchard (1999), many governments have yet to put in place cash management systems, which would pave way for coordinated domestic management. The practice of limiting outlays to collected revenues has exacerbated this problem. He, further argued that there is a massive underfunding of programs and projects provided for in the budget.
4. Payments system: This involves the operational procedures for receiving monies for the public and for making payments to them. In Nigeria, governments make payments using a variety of procedures. These include book adjustments, issue of cheques, and payment authorities and electronic payment systems.
5. Government accounting and financial reporting: Government accounting and financial reporting is a very important component of the public sector financial management process in Nigeria. As Adams (2001) noted that government accounting entails the recording, communicating, summarizing, analyzing and interpreting financial statement in aggregate and in details. In the same vein, Prenchard (1999) argues that government accounts have the dual purpose of meeting internal management requirements while providing the public with a window on government operations. Government financial reports should be prepared with the objective in mind of providing full disclosure on a timely basis of all material facts relating to government financial position and operations (Achua, 2009). Financial reports on their own do not mean accountability but they are an indispensible part of accountability.
6. Audit: One of the fundamental aspects of public sector financial management in Nigeria is the issue of audit of government financial reports. Audit is the process carried out by suitably qualified Auditors during the accounting records and the financial statements of enterprises are subjected to examination by the independent Auditors with the main purpose of expressing an opinion in accordance with the terms of appointment. The high level of corruption in the public sector of Nigeria is basically as a result of the failure of auditing. As Prenchard (1999) puts it ‘many audit agencies are legally prevented from reviewing policies. Most of them cannot follow the trail of money, as they do not have the right to look into books of contractors, and autonomous agencies’. One fundamental failure of audit is the absence of value for money in the Nigerian public sector.
7. Legislative control: The legislature (House of Representative and Senate) in Nigeria is expected to perform this very important task of controlling and regulating the revenue and expenditure estimates in any fiscal year. It is the responsibility of the members of the National Assembly to ensure that the budget estimates are properly scrutinized to ensure accuracy, effectiveness and efficiency of government revenue and expenditure. The challenge at hand was to devise institutional mechanisms that would make governments accountable for the extraction, allocation and use of revenues for the well-being of the people.
2.1.6 Achieving Accountability in Public Financial Management in Nigeria.
Legislatures to champion the cause of accountability.
The legislators in Nigeria and other developing countries have the constitutional responsibility to ensure that the executive are accountable to the people for the management of public funds. But the revise is the case in Nigeria, where the legislators are part and parcel of the collapse of the system. However, for accountability to be achieved in Nigeria, legislators at all level of government must ensure that appropriate laws and over-sight functions are properly performed by them (Onuorah, 2012).
Re-orientation of Value System
One fundamental problem in Nigeria is the failure of the value system. This failure has resulted to the high level of corruption and lack of accountability by public officers. According to Adegite (2010), that corrupt tendencies pervade the strata of the Nigerian society so much so that the youths, who are supposed to be the leaders of tomorrow, are neck deep in examination malpractice, 419 and internet fraud. She recommends that for Nigeria to be among the most developed economies in 2020, and then the nation’s value system should be strengthened through the reintroduction of civics and ethics into the curricula of our educational system while a national orientation for the rebirth of our value system should be urgently initiated. Le (2012) Viewed accountability in public services to, includes effective accounting, auditing and decentralization, and generally making public officials responsible for their actions and responsive to consumers.
Management accountability framework.
Accountability law is only a part of the accountability process. A proper accountability framework would require that the government should put in place guidelines for preparing and approving work plan, method of monitoring plans, reporting performance, accumulation of portfolio of evidence on performance reporting, system of validation and oversight of performance reports, establishing and resourcing public accountability institutions, training pubic managers and guidelines for dealing with political institutions by public managers.
Protection of Whistleblowers
One fundamental means of achieving optimum accountability in Nigeria is the protection of the whistle blowers. An effective framework of accountability requires that those who blow the whistle should be protected against any reprisal. The government in Nigeria should establish appropriate laws to protect the whistleblowers.
Creating an environment of accountability
An effective framework of accountability rests, besides, formal structures, on a proper environment. It requires such things as existence of a proper code of conduct, training in ethics, appearance of equal treatment by senior managers toward all employees, and unforgiving accountability of senior officers. It also means that the oversight bodies should adopt a reasonable attitude toward public managers. The primary requirement for ensuring citizen’s demand for accountability in Nigeria under a democratic rule is the sanctity of the citizens’ votes. It is through the use of their votes to reward or sanction rulers at periodic elections that citizens become assured of their power to call their political rulers to accounts. In the absence of fulfilling this pre-condition, accountability of the leaders are bound to fail or at best, would be of insignificant effect. Secondly, service delivery which is the primary function of government is another yardstick for measuring the extent to which a government is accountable to its citizenry. Thirdly, at the centre of the critical importance of accountability and service delivery connection is the budget. Both the internal accountability measures within the executive and the external accountability efforts of the legislature must be put in place to ensure that the budgetary external accountability efforts of the legislature must be put in place to ensure that the budgetary allocation are spent on the purposes intended.
At the recent passing of Nigeria’s 2010 budget, the Senate President, Senator David Mark,gave a timely advice on the need for a faithful implementation of the budget for the generality of Nigerians. allocation are spent on the purposes intended. At the recent passing of Nigeria’s 2010 budget, the Senate President, Senator David Mark, gave a timely advice on the need for a faithful implementation of the budget for the generality of Nigerians (Akomolede & Akomolede, 2012).
Adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards
The success of accountability in the public sector in Nigeria lies on the proper implementation of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards. Public sector organizations in Nigeria use the cash basis of accounting. It is very necessary that Ministries, Departments and Agencies should begin to use the accrual basis of accounting. A complete accrual basis of accounting would make public managers accountable for recording and safeguarding of public assets, managing public cash flows, and disclosing and discharging public liabilities. Adegite (2010) says that to attract foreign direct investments to Nigeria, the financial reporting processes must be aligned with international standards. Majella (2013) Opined that the shift from cash-based accounting to accrual accounting will enable the public sector to report its financial performance, financial position and cash flow more accurately towards enhancing accountability and transparency in its financial management. The shift is not only positive for fiscal discipline and governance, but will facilitate targeted government efforts to move to a high-income, developed-economy status.
Public performance reporting
Public managers are in a business that affects virtually every aspect of a person’s life. People, therefore, have a right to know, how the public managers are doing their business. The legislators need to take a lead in this regard and enact necessary laws making it obligatory for all public entities to report on their performance. Public reporting on performance of departments or programs should be made mandatory.
Determination of the cost of doing government business
One major problem affecting the growth of public expenditure and corruption in Nigeria is the high cost of doing government business. A large number of costs in the form of use of existing assets and facilities are not recorded in the year the assets are used. The government following cash-based accounting does not have a system of charging depreciation to the government assets and allocating them to various programs and projects. Thus the true cost of doing government business remains hidden. A proper accountability framework would require that a detailed cost accounting system be introduced in government.
The establishment of the benchmark of efficiency
A very important problem facing public sector managers in Nigeria is the clear absence of performance benchmark. Public performance reporting requires that benchmarks of efficiency be devised for all ministries, departments and agencies. This should be done in consultation with the MDA’s themselves and should remain open for periodic review and revisions (Onuorah, 2012).
Strengthening the Public Accounts Committee
Public accounts committees play a very significant role in accountability of public officers in Nigeria. Public accounts committees should be strengthened with a system of familiarizing the members with the audit scope, approach and methods through workshops and powers to take action if their recommendations are not implemented.
Change in the structure of Government Accounting and Auditing
Governmental accounting system in Nigeria is grossly deficient. Financial reports are outdated and unreliable at all levels of government. Little attention is paid to financial accountability I the public service. Achua (2009) posit that there is an urgent need to protect the commonwealth from poor performance and fraud, and to protect individuals from lawless, arbitrary and capricious actions by the state’s surrogate administrators. Therefore, the is an urgent need to restructure the public sector accounting system taking into consideration the frailties and flaws of governmental accounting in Nigeria. Adegite (2010) also says the rapid development and changes that have taken place in the nation’s public sector since 1958. It is urgently necessary a comprehensive revision of the entire audit laws of the State with a view to aligning them with current realities and demands of globalization.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
The need to curb the trend of corruption and lack of accountability by those occupying positions of authority in Nigeria necessitated the establishment of EFCC in 2003 by President Olusegun Obasanjo. This patriotic move became imperative in response to pressure from the international community which named Nigeria as one of the notorious 23 countries that did not cooperate with the fight against money laundering. The government later promulgated the EFCC Act 2004 to give legal backing to the watchdog agency. Ribadu (2006) noted that Nigeria’s target with regard to financial accountability and mismanagement of common wealth is zero tolerance for corruption. This EFCC hoped to actualize through diverse strategies, viz;
i. Promulgation of laws against graft ‘ Independent Corrupt Practices and (Other Related Offences) Commission (ICPC) Act, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004.
ii. Strengthening of anti-corruption and other economic crimes Institutions for effective law enforcement.
iii. Prosecution and conviction of high ranking administration officials.
iv. Tracing, seizing and confiscation of all proceeds of crime.
v. Institution of the Due Process Mechanism in public sector procurements.
vi. Privatization of failing public institutions and creating an enabling environment for effective private-public partnerships.
vii. Monthly publication of distributable revenue from the Federation Account to the different tiers of government.
viii. Institution of transparencies in the oil and gas sector through the work of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI)
In line with the above strategies, the EFCC is empowered by law to investigate, prevent and prosecute offenders who engage in money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corrupt practices, illegal arms deal, smuggling, human trafficking, and child labour, illegal oil bunkering, illegal mining, tax evasion, foreign exchange malpractices including counterfeiting of currency, theft of intellectual property and piracy, open market abuse, dumping of toxic wastes, and prohibited goods(Section 46, EFCC Establishment Act, 2004). The Commission is also responsible for identifying, tracing, freezing, confiscating, or seizing proceeds derived from terrorist activities. EFCC is also host to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), vested with the responsibility of collecting suspicious transactions reports (STRs) from financial and designated non-financial institutions, analyzing and disseminating them to all relevant government agencies and other Financial Intelligence Units all over the world.
In addition to other law relating to economic and financial crimes, including the criminal and penal codes, EFCC is empowered to enforce all the pre-1999 anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws. Punishment prescribed in the EFCC Establishment Act range from combination of payment of fine, forfeiture of assets and up to five years imprisonment depending on the nature and gravity of the offence. Conviction for terrorist financing and terrorist activities attracts life imprisonment (Ribadu, 2006).
Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)
The rationale for creating ICPC was not different from that of EFCC. According to Akanbi, (2005) the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) emerged as a policy response from the Federal Government to fight and curb corruption that has tragically assumed monstrous proportions and permeated all levels of the society, corroded its moral fabric, eroded its economic base and threatened its stability. The Obasanjo’s administration therefore established the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in September 1999 and warmly enacted the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act in June 2000 (Ibid).
The mandate of ICPC in line with the Act setting it up was to prohibit and prescribe punishment for corruption, fraud, embezzlement, bribery and forgery perpetrated by Nigerians at home and abroad with impunity. The ICPC Act 2000 brings under its purview all Nigerians, in the private and public sectors and even those political office-holders with constitutional immunity. The Provision of Section 6 (a-f) of the ICPC Act 2000 sets out the duties of the Commission as paraphrased in the following:
i. To receive and investigate complaints from members of the public on allegations of corrupt practices and in appropriate cases, prosecute the offenders.
ii. To examine the practices, systems and procedures of public bodies and where such systems aid corruption, to direct and supervise their review.
iii. To instruct advice and assist any officer, agency, or parastatal on ways by which fraud or corruption may be eliminated or minimized by them.
iv. To advise heads of public bodies of any changes in practice, systems or procedures compatible with the effective discharge of the duties of public bodies to reduce the likelihood or incidence of bribery, corruption and related offences.
v. To educate the public on and against bribery, corruption and related offences.
vi. To enlist and foster public support in combating corruption.
The crisis of accountability has to do with the recognition of the fact that accountability in Nigeria has been challenged to a crisis point. The crisis is now exerting an adverse impact on the national polity and a resolutionof the crisis should definitely have a relieving impacton the national politics in Nigeria. Accountability therefore, implies that the government is accountable to her citizens.
Accountability has to do with the institutionalizing of the system of checks and balances in order to check excesses or abuse. Public service has to do with the business of government at all levels including all that preoccupies the politicians, elected and appointed officials, the elite leadership, the intelligentsia, the armed forces and other law enforcement agencies and not just the civil service or the parastatals. Accountability is an all encompassing concept which has to do with the full and faithful discharge of assignment, responsibility, covenant or trust. This is considered central in all social relations, whether between individual or between servants of the state and government or between public servants and the people they are meant to serve, anything short of this, the government or political party will lose the confidence of the people which gives room for accountability expectation gap in governance.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
This theoretical framework will be discussed within the scope of network theory which will give a proper perspective for this work. According to Adesoji (2013), network theory in the society is stratified into different groups with each group dependent on one another thus leading to growth, development and stability. In order to enjoy the basic necessities in the society, different groups of people network so as to obtain what they need and in return give what they have but cannot translate to economic activity on their own. In the process a sense of reciprocity is created. This theory focuses on the objective patterns of ties linking the members of society as well as on a wide range of micro to macro structures which can be provided by the ruling class (government).
To these theorists, the actors may be people as well groups, corporations and societies. Links occur at the large scale social cultural level as well as at more microscopic levels. The micro level links as actions embedded in the concrete personal relations and structures of such relations. Applying the theory to this study, it could be seen that the coming together of different individuals and groups that have to network to access what they need in the immediate environment. Whereas such individuals may have something of important they in their possession (voting power), there may be something else they need from others (dividend of democracy). To have it, they will have to network. By networking, they give what they have in exchange for what they do not have by casting vote, whether directly or indirectly, they participate in electioneering process, which will sustain the social structure. As regards the political system vis a vis governance, electorates possess some sort of value which can give political group the power that it desires. Whereas the electorates have no power to formulate policies which they earnestly desire, they however have voting right with which they can negotiate with political actors for development and their voice to be heard (Adesoji, 2013).
The electorates’ power is not just the voting right but also the selection of candidates that will represent them and provide the societal needs of the voters. Having given their votes to give power to a particular party and particular individuals, the party and the elected representatives are expected to implement the developmental needs for the voters i.e. the masses. This theory reveals the relationship between the citizenry, political parties and the government. It is the responsibility of national leaders to provide rules of governance and the coercive forces to keep them in order to sustain the social system while the values which individuals desire include justice, equity, security, economic empowerment and employment opportunities(Adesoji, 2013). As the electorates grant their supports for a party to gain power over state resources including the coercive forces thereby stating the rules of the games, such a party on assumption of power is expected to grant the values of the electorates. By so doing, the social structure gains consciousness of a process imbued with justice, fairness, accountability and equity and as this happens, the social structure experiences growth and development. This therefore makes growth and development a major responsibility of those providing governance. Development, which has to do with both quantitative and qualitative changes in the structure and performance of forces of production through eradication of poverty, disease, hunger, inequality, unemployment among other social problems cannot meaningfully take place without good governance in place. Good leadership must be ready to showing the responsibility of governance in ensuring political stability, provision of sound institutions, sound macroeconomic policies, conducive investment climate, good management of natural resources, accountability, schemes, and a climate free of corruption all of which are essential ingredients for development. The question therefore is, how well has the government of Edo State fared in carrying out this responsibility to the masses.
Political accountability is an important type of public accountability within the sphere of democracies. Here, Strom, (2000) accountability is exercised along the chain of principal-agent relationships. Voters delegate their power and sovereignty to their representatives, who in turn, at least in presidential democracies, delegate the majority of their authorities to the executive and the legislative arm of government. The mechanism of political accountability operates precisely in the opposite direction to that of delegation. In presidential systems with executive accountability, such as Nigeria, public servants and their organisations are accountable to their electorate. In some sense, the people’s representatives render account to the voters at election time (Strom, M”ller & Bergman 2003). Thus viewed, each of the linkages in the chain as in turn, not only agent and principal. It is only the two ends of the chain ‘ the voters and the executive public servants ‘ who do not exchange roles. In country characterised by political appointments, such as Nigeria, political parties and party barons often also function as important, informal political forums because if the political party in power fails the electorate, the political party will be affected during the electioneering process.
2.3 Review of Empirical Studies
Studies in the area of audit expectation gap accountability process in public sector are rare; however, the empirical evidence in this research work focuses mostly on the area of accountability in the public sector.
Victor (2014) examined ethics and accountability in public service of Nigeria, The obligation theory perspective. The study found that adequate mechanisms and infrastructure has been put in place to facilitate ethical and accountability standards in the Nigerian public service, but without achieving envisaged results. The Service therefore is not transparent in its conduct and consequently exhibit high level of corruption. It therefore recommended that moral tuition and enlightenment campaigns be done to ensure that good leaders are elected, in order to also develop the political will to enforce sanctions against misconduct in the service, thereby enhancing general societal development.
David (2013) investigated accountability practice in Kenya’s public service, a lessons to guide service improvement.The study revealed that the current practice is one that promotes accounting for resources spent more than promoting accountability. It was further noted that public servants were more accountable to their seniors, the heads of departments and ultimately the president and his Cabinet than they were to the public which has put the government in place.The study recommends that public servants should embrace the whole scope and meaning of accountability. Top leadership in government must also provide exemplary leadership to be good role models of public sector accountability practice.
Asma’u and Ibrahim(2014) carried out a study on the assessment of the public service reforms in promoting public accountability in Nigeria’s democratic era. (1999-2009). The study was designed to assess the role of public service reforms in promoting public accountability in a democratic dispensation. Secondary data or content analysis was adopted in the study. The study revealed that Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS), public, financial and procurement law, e-payment, Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) and anti-graft agencies (EFCC &ICPC) were the instruments adopted by the Nigerian Government to ensure public accountability within public service reforms. It is recommended that the tiers of government should provide the enabling legislations, policies, reforms as well as to strictly comply with the measures and policies for public accountability in the reforms for the attainment of public probity in governance.
Haslida (2013) study on transparency, trust and confidence in the public sector revealed that enhanced transparency neither influence the voting decisions nor improved public participation in the local government activities. However, it does provide clearer views for the public service employees on the local government functions, and support them in delivering with their work in more efficient manner. The study recommended that comprehensive performance measurement and assessment enhance efficiency in service deliveries improve clarity on what is expected from the local government.
Chukwuebuka and Chidubem (2011) studied the political economy of public service accountability in Nigeria. The findings observed that to ensure sanity, progress and development in the public service, code of ethics, values and accountability are tripartite essentiality and that the institution of enforcement mechanisms is always crucial in achieving this. Nevertheless, the manifestations of deepening attitudinal decay, mindful abuse of official codes and principles and sterical stealing riddles the public service of today. It further discovered that many of the over-dozed reforms and the enforcement of multifarious disciplinary regimes have not appreciably shielded public servants from the vagaries of its own undoing. It recommended the enforcement of laws and legislations which is most welcomed. One of a workable strategy to be taken in revamping ethical standard, values and accountability in the contemporary public service should be more of an approach that will wholesomely address the questions of excruciating poverty and hardship in developing countries
Ilufoye (2010) investigated democracy and good governance: Nigeria’s dilemma. The study discovered that the problem of development in Nigeria is a problem of governance; when defined in terms of the proper, fair and equitable allocation of resources for the achievement of the end or purposes of the state, which is the promotion of the common good. The study recommended that for good governance to be feasible in Nigeria, sound anti-corruption policies devoid of mere speeches must be put in place. Furthermore, a functional legislature, a viable and independent judiciary, and the attitudinal transformation on the part of the political elite, the absence of which good governance and development will continue to be a mirage.
Onuorah and Appah (2012) investigated accountability and public sector financial management in Nigeria from 1961-2008. The findings revealed that the level of accountability is very poor in Nigeria because the attributes of accessibility, comprehensiveness, relevance, quality, reliability and timely disclosure of economic, social and political information about government activities are completely non available or partially available for the citizens to assess the performance of public officers mostly the political office holders. On the basis of these, the paper recommended among others that for accountability to be successful in the management of public funds in Nigeria there must be a reduction in the level of corruption, improving public sector accounting and auditing standards, legislators as champions of accountability and restructure the public accounts committees and the value of money must be applied in the conduct of government business.
Ibietan (2013), examined the level of Corruption and Public Accountability in the Nigerian Public Sector. The main objective of the study is to interrogate the omission in the system of public accountability in the Nigerian public sector that has made corruption, mismanagement and misappropriation a monster. Its findings revealed that corruption heightens which hamper effective accountability in government. Also, the Nigerian penal (code) system or sanctions for weighty crimes such as corruption are weak and serve no deterrence to actual and potential offenders. It therefore recommended that in order to rise above this challenge and make progress, the fallen status of our laws must be addressed through pragmatic implementation and committed leadership anchored on sound values and practice.
Ibietan and Ajayi (2015) worked on the Governing Elite and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria. With the adoption of secondary method of data collection and Elite theory as framework of analysis, the study observed that the much expected democratic dividends are still lacking and the requirements for democratic consolidation are yet to be in place. The study recommended therefore, that the mechanisms and institutions responsible for maintaining public accountability should be invigorated. This is with a view to plugging the perforation of public wealth and resources. Also anti-graft campaign and drive should be resuscitated and given serious bite in order to halt the kleptomania tendencies of the political class/governing elite.
Olomiyete (2014) examined accountability and financial reporting issues in Nigeria by Considering a Change from Cash Accounting to Accrual Accounting. The study recommended that with enthronement of democracy, citizens’ expectations from the government are drifting from mere provision of public services to efficiency and accountability and the government should be ready at all times to be accountable to the people.
Rafiu and Oyedokun (2007) Studied auditing and accountability mechanism in the public sector of Osun State. The study revealed that the internal control systems in the state are very weak; audit procedures and accountability are as well ineffective due to political interference and skill of some staff. Therefore, they recommended that strong internal control system, accountability and more training and retraining of auditing staff should be encouraged and political interference should be discouraged at all levels of governance.
Dada, Udoaka and Dada (2013) investigated the imperative of good governance for sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Their study found that excessive greed, unbridled corruption, lack of transparency and accountability and such other vices as are prevalent in Nigeria are anti-democratic agents and denial good of governance and therefore recommendeda revolutionary overhauling of the three arms of government and administrative institutions in order to achieve good governance and sustain the current democratic governance.
CHAPTER THREE
3.1 METHODOLOGY
This entails the ways this research will be carried out; the research designs, sources of data, instrument that will be used in the collection of data. Sample size and sampling techniques methods of data presentation and analytical techniques used.
3.2 Source of Information
The researcher will consult extensive literature from previous work carried out on the audit expectation gap. The functions, power and responsibility of the government and the perception and expectation of the electorate, users of the financial information. Data will be collected from both primary and secondary sources of information.
3.2.1 Primary Sources of Data
The primary sources of data will involve carrying out an original investigation to obtain data primary and specifically for the purpose of the research work. In respect of this research questionnaire were administers and personal interview were employed using interview guides.
3.2.2 Secondary Sources of Data
The secondary sources of data comprises existing material in libraries, archives political parties and public offices, they exist in the form of published data in government bulletin or public records, may be in the form of production records, amount records, project executed, pay roll, or such other records, routinely kept by government, budgetary allocation, trade association or office of statistics (Agbonifoh and Yomere, 1999). This research work will gathered through the use of relevant literature, books, journals, circulars, projects, and Accounting Standards records (IPSAS) and other regulatory agencies or bodies etc.
3.3 Population of Study
For this research purpose the target populations consist of 600 people consisting of both male and female from adverse ethnic nationality, their educational background ranges from first school living certificate to the University Degree.
3.4 Sampling Procedure and Methods of Data Collection
Stratified sampling method will be applied. This will be done by stratifying the areas. After stratification form, the researcher will randomly choose from the respondents that will be used for the research exercise.
Stratified sampling involves first dividing the population into the number of observed strata or groups or classification; for example, income classes, density areas, occupational groups etc. And the number in each stratum is known and random sampling procedure used to select the desired proportion in each stratum until the sample size is obtained for all the stratified population.
3.5 Sample Frame and Population Size
This research adopts a sampling ratio of 30% of the population size. The population size is 600 and 30% of it 180.
Alabi (2003) opine that, one of the basic principles guiding the selection of a sample size is the smaller the population, the bigger the sampling ratio which has to be for accurate sampling and the larger the population, the smaller the sampling ratio for equally good sample.
According to Yusuf (2003), there is no hard and fast rule binding the selection of sample size. Thus, for small population (under 1000) a use meter needs a larger sampling ratio (about 30% percent). For moderately large population (10, 000) a smaller sampling ratio (about 10 % percent) is needed to be equally accurate or sample size of 1000. For large population (over 150, 000) sample sampling ratio (1 % percent) are possible and sample of about 1500 can be very accurate. To sample from large population of over 10, million, one can achieved accuracy using tiny sampling ratio (0.025 % percent or 2500).
3.6 Instrument of Data Collection
Likert scale ‘ type questionnaire with the following classifications; Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD) and Undecided (UD), was used to obtain data used for analysis. The questionnaire comprises two sections viz section A containing information about respondents’ personal data and section B which contains questions on issues connected with accountability expectation gap in the public sector in Edo State.
3.7 Method of Data Analysis
Basically, the researcher decided to use the analysis of variance (ANOVA) because it will help to determine the significance of the different between three or more samples. It will also compare the variation between population means with variation within the population.
For the analysis to be effective and testable, the researcher decided to used simple analytical tools/method, the various hypotheses were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA) method for testing the hypothesis.
The ANOVA formula is stated below:
ANOVA (F)=Vb/Vw
Therefore Vb=SSb/dfb
Vw=SSw/dfw
Vb=Variance between group
Vw=Variance within group
Dfb=Degree of Freedom between group
Dfw=Degree of freedom within group
SSb=Sum of Square between group
SSw=Sum of Square within group
While;
Dfb=K-1
Dfw=N-K
N=Number of group.
DECISION RULE
Reject Ho in favour of H1, if the computed value of the statistics exceeds the critical value or tabulated value. Otherwise do not reject the Ho.
3.8 Validity and Reliability
The instrument for this study was subjected to both face and content validation. The validation of questionnaire was based on research question in order to make sure that they are not at variance with the subject under study. The researcher contacted some academicians to scrutinize the question and they critically appraised and made necessary corrections. The researcher went further to validate the question by sending it to his supervisor for assessment and approval.
To determine the level of reliability of the instrument used, the questionnaire was subjected to test of internal consistency.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1 Presentation of Data
Here the data collected with the structured questionnaire are presented. Out of one hundred and eighty (180) questionnaire administered on the respondents, one hundred and seventy one (171) were duly completed and returned. This results to 95% questionnaire return rate.
Personal Characteristics of Respondents
The questionnaire consists of two parts; Part A and Part B. Part A has four questions that relate to the personal characteristics of the respondents which are presented in a tabular form and analyzed using simple percentages.
Sex
TABLE 1: Sex Distribution of Respondents
SEX FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE%
MALE 98 57
FEMALE 65 38
NOT SPECIFIED 8 5
TOTAL 171 100
Source: Field Survey 2015
From table 1, ninety eight (98) respondents representing 57% were male, sixty five (65) representing 38% were female while eight (8) representing 5% either forgot or refused to indicate their sex.
B. Work Experience
TABLE 2: Working Experience Distribution of Respondents
NO. OF YEARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE%
1-5 46 27
6-10 39 23
11-15 44 26
16-Above 38 22
Not Specified 4 2
TOTAL 171 100
Source: Field Survey 2015
From the table 2, the respondents that have worked between 1-5 years were forty six (46) representing 27%, those with 6-10 years are thirty nine (39) representing 23%, while those with 11-15 years are forty four (44) representing 26%, those above 16 years are thirty eight (38) representing 22% and finally those that did not indicate how long they have worked are four (4) representing 2%.
Age
TABLE 3: Age Distribution of Respondents
AGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)
18-30 52 30
31-42 87 51
43-60 30 18
Not Specified 2 1
TOTAL 171 100
Source: Field Survey 2015
A look at the table 3 above, the worker’s age range 18-30 consisted of fifty two (52) representing 30%, 31-42years old were eighty seven (87) representing 51% while those between the age of 43-60years old were thirty(30) representing 18% and two (2) representing 1% did not indicate their age.
Educational Qualification
TABLE 4: Education Qualification Distribution of Respondents
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)
O-LEVEL 8 5
DIPLOMA/OND/NCE 26 15
B. Sc/HND 54 32
M. Sc/MBA 59 35
Ph. D 5 3
PROFESSIONAL 11 6
NOT SPECIFIED 8 5
TOTAL 171 100
Source: Field Survey 2015
A review of the table 4 above, reveals O-level had eight (8) representing 5%, Diploma/OND/NCE twenty six (26) representing 15%, B.Sc/HND had fifty four (54) representing 32%, M.Sc/MBA has fifty (59) representing 35%, Ph. D five (5) representing 3%, professional eleven (11) representing 6% and finally, those that did not indicate their qualification were eight (8) representing 5%.
The part B aspects of the questionnaire consist of 7-24 questions. The respondent are presented on the bases of the hypothesis formulated and the relevant research question that enable the objective of the research work to be examine, this implies that’s questionnaire item 19, 20, 21 and 22 for the hypothesis one, questionnaire item 8, 13 and 17 for the hypothesis two and questionnaire item 16, 19, 23 and 24 are for hypothesis three (3).
A five point likert scale types of measurement was employed. For easy analyzing of the questionnaire, the respondents were grouped into three categories, Group I, II and III.
GROUP l
TABLE 5: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis One
H1: There is a significant difference in the perception of respondent groups on the existing duties, responsibilities and accountability in Edo State.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
18 Government parts of audits opinion reflect true or fair view of the financial statements in this report
82
28
18
10
5
143
20 Government have been delivering dividend of democracy to the expectation of the public
102
15
5
5
16
143
10 Government activities comply with constitutions, standards and other regulatory bodies
43
36
38
16
10
143
22 Government ministries ,agencies and parastatals do adopt International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) in their financial activities
78
18
28
19
143
Source:Field Survey 2015
TABLE 6: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis Two
H2: There is significant difference between the perceptions of respondent groups rely on government audited financial reports in measuring their performance.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
8 Financial statements of government are free from material errors, fraud or irregularities
29
20
46
39
9
143
13 Government is primarily responsible for the truthfulness, accountability and reliability of their financial records
43
49
22
19
8
143
17 Audit reports do assist the general public to measure the performance of the government in place
54
43
23
16
7
143
Source:Financial Survey 2015
TABLE 7: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis Three
H3: There is a significant difference in the perception of the respondent groups on the existence of the audit expectation gap in the public sector accountability process in Edo State
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
7 All government financial statements should be audited to ensure truthfulness, transparency and reliability of accounting information provided.
65
54
12
8
4
143
9 Auditing is to ensure accuracy and legitimacy of accounting records
76
52
8
4
3
143
11 State auditors detect frauds, errors, irregularities, inefficiency and wastage in government operation
54
46
24
12
7
143
12 An audit is to ensure fairness and completeness of financial accountability
51
72
9
8
3
143
14 Government are liable for fraudulent or misleading information contained in financial records
62
59
13
9
143
15 Auditors should disclose in their audit report uncovered fraud, misappropriation and mismanagement of public funds.
81
54
6
2
143
21 Auditors to government have the rights and powers to obtain information and explanations needed from the government functionaries
67
56
11
6
3
143
.
TABLE 8: Analysis of Responses to Questions onAudit Expectation Gap in the Public Sector.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
16 Auditors should be held liable for losses sustained by the public if they fail to disclose fraud
85
36
9
7
6
143
19 Government do intimidate auditors to reflect their wishes in their report
68
52
16
4
3
143
23 The general public have access to immediate information on the functionality of the government
13
17
47
60
6
143
24 Government functionaries prepare and present annual statement of account to the public
37
34
42
20
10
143
Source: Field Survey 2015
GROUP ll
TABLE 9: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis One
H1: There is a significant difference in the perception of respondent groups on the existing duties, responsibilities and accountability in Edo State.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
18 Audit reports do assist the general public to measure the performance of the government in place
16
13
4
2
35
10 Government activities comply with the constitution, standards and other regulatory bodies
5
3
14
10
3
35
20 Government have been delivering dividend of democracy to the expectation of the general public
4
3
12
14
2
35
22 Government ministries, Agencies and Parastatals
do adopt International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) in their financial activities
8
4
15
8
O
35
Source: Field Survey 2015
TABLE 10: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis Two
H2: There is significant difference between the perceptions of respondent groups rely on government audited financial reports in measuring their performance.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
17 Audit reports do assist the public(electorates) to measure the performance of the government in place
16
13
3
2
1
35
8 Financial statements of government are free from material errors, frauds or irregularities
6
3
13
9
4
35
13 Government is primarily responsible for the truthfulness, accountability and reliability of financial records
13
11
8
1
2
35
Source: Field Survey 2015
TABLE11: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis Three
H3: There is significant difference in the perception of the respondent groups on the existence of expectation gap in public sector accountability process in Edo state.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
16 Auditors should be held liable for the losses sustained by the public if they fail to disclose fraud and irregularities in government accounts
4
5
12
13
1
35
19 Government do intimidate auditors to reflect their wishes in their reports.
14
13
3
3
2
35
23 The general public have access to the necessary information on the functionality of the government
6
8
11
9
1
35
24 Government functionaries prepare and present annual statement of accounts to the public
7
8
9
10
1
35
Source: Field Survey 2015
TABLE 12: Analysis of Responses to Questions onAudit Expectation Gap in the Public Sector
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
7 All government financial statements should be audited to ensure truthfulness, transparency and reliability of accounting information 14 15
5 0 1 35
9 Auditing is to ensure accuracy and legitimacy of accounting records
12
16
4
3
35
11 State auditors detect frauds, errors, irregularities, inefficiency and wastage in government operations
8
11
10
5
1
35
12 An audit is to ensure fairness and completeness of financial accountability
13
16
4
1
1
35
14 Government are liable for fraudulent or misleading information contained if financial records
11
14
5
3
2
35
15 Auditors should disclose in their audit report all uncovered fraud, misappropriations and mismanagements of public funds
14
13
4
3
1
35
21 Auditors to government have the rights and powers to obtain information and explanations needed from the government functionaries
11
14
8
7
5
35
Source: Field Survey 2015
GROUP lll
TABLE 13: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis One
H1: There is a significant difference in the perception of respondent groups on the existing duties, responsibilities and accountability in Edo State.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
10 Government activities comply with the constitution, standards and other regulatory bodies
9
8
10
6
2
42
18 Government parts of audit opinion reflects true or fair view of the financial statements
7
6
11
11
42
20 Government have been delivering dividend of democracy to the expectation of the public
6
4
16
8
1
42
22 Government ministries, agencies and do adopt international public sector accounting standards (IPSAS)
5
6
12
4
8
42
Source: Field Survey 2015
TABLE 14: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis Two
H2: There is significant difference between the perceptions of respondent groups rely on government audited financial reports in measuring their performance.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
8 Financial statements of government are free from material errors, frauds or irregularities
3
4
14
13
1
35
13 Government is primarily responsible for the truthfulness, accountability and reliability of financial records
9
10
8
6
2
35
17 Audit reports do assist the general public(electorates) to measure the performance of the government in place
14
15
3
2
1
35
Source: Field Survey 2015
TABLE 15: Responses to Questions on Hypothesis Three
H3: There is a significant difference in the perception of the respondent groups on the existence of audit expectation gap process in the public sector of Edo State.
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
16 Auditors should be held liable for the losses sustained by the public if they fail to disclose fraud and irregularities in government accounts
5
3
12
14
1
35
19 Government do intimidate auditors to reflect their wishes in their reports
9
14
6
5
1
35
23 The general public have access to all necessary information on the functionality of government
5
2
12
16
35
24 Government functionaries prepare and present annual statement of accounts to the public
10
14
6
4
1
35
Source: Field Survey 2015
TABLE 16: Analysis of Responses to Questions onAudit Expectation Gap in the Public Sector
Question Number Questionnaire Item SA A DA SD UD TOTAL
7 All government financial statements should be audited to ensure truthfulness, transparency and reliability of accounting records
13
16
5
1
35
9 Auditing is to ensure accuracy and legitimacy accounting records 14 12
6 2 1 35
11 State auditors detect frauds, errors, irregularities, inefficiency and wastage in government operation
13
14
3
3
2
35
12 An audit is to ensure fairness and completeness of financial accounting 12 15 6 1 1 35
14 Government are liable for fraudulent or misleading information contained in financial records
13
14
3
3
2
35
15 Auditors should disclose in their audit report uncovered frauds, misappropriations and mismanagements of public funds 11 14 6 4 0 35
21 Auditor to government have the right and power to obtain information and explanation needed from the government functionaries
12
15
4
3
1
35
Source: Field Survey 2015
4.2 ANOVA Results of HypothesesTesting
The data collected for the study were analyzed using ANOVA statistical tool.
The ANOVA formula is stated below;ANOVA(F) = Vb/Vw
Therefore, Vb = SSb/dfb
Vw = SSw/dfw
Vs = Variance between Group
Vw = Variance within Group
Dfb = Degree of Freedom between Groups
Dfw = Degree of within Groups
SSb = Sum of Square between Groups
SSw = Sum of the Square within Groups
While,
Dfb = K-I
Dfw = N-K
N = Numbers of Group
Hypothesis One
H1: There is a significant difference in the perception of respondent groups on the existing duties, responsibilities and accountability in Edo State.
TABLE 17:Results of Hypothesis One
GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III
410 80 45
510 25 35
215 20 30
390 40 25
112 52 32
60 12 24
144 12 16
72 16 24
54 12 30
15 42 33
114 36 48
84 45 36
20 4 12
10 20 22
32 28 16
38 16 8
5 0 2
16 3 0
10 2 1
0 0 8
2311 465 447
X = 115.5 X = 23.25 X = 22.35
Source: Field Survey 2015
The general mean = 115.55 + 23.25 + 23.35/3
= 161.15/3 = 53.71
SSb = (115.5 ‘ 53.71)2 + (23.25 ‘ 53.71)2 + (22.35 + 53.71)2
3824.18 + 927.81 + 983.44
= 5735.43
The degree of freedom (df)
K-I, K=3, 3-1 = 2
Df = 5735.43/2
Mss = 2867.71
To get the Sum Square Within Group
Group I
= SSw = 2311 ‘ ‘(115.55)’^2/20
2311 ‘ 667.59 = 1643.41
df = N ‘ 1, N = 20, 20 ‘ 1 = 19
1643.41/19 = 86.49
Vb/Vw = 2867.71/86.49= 33.15
Group II
SSw = 465 ‘ ‘(23.25)’^2/20
= 465 ‘ 27.03 = 437.97
df = N ‘ 1, N = 20, = 20 ‘ 1= 19
Msb = 437.97/19=23.05
Vb/Vw = 2867.71/23.75 = 124.41
Group III
SSw = 447 ‘ ‘(22.35)’^2/20
447 ‘ 24.98 = 422.02
df = N ‘ 1, N = 20, 20 – 1 = 19
= 422.02/19 = 22.21
Vb/Vw = 2867.71/22.21 = 129.11
TABLE 18: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Sources of Variance DF Sum of Square(SS) Mean Square(MS) F-Calculated Critical Value of F Significant Decision
Between Group k-1
3-1=2 5735.43 2867.71 3.52
Within Group N-1
20-1=19 2503.40 131.76 21.76 S Reject Null
Source: Field Survey 2015
Decision
From the analysis the F-ratio distribution, the critical value of F with 2 and 19 degree of freedom at 0.05% level of significant is 3.59, since the computed value of 21.76 is greater than the critical value of 3.59,the null hypothesis may be rejected. The implication of this is that there is a significant relationship between the perception of respondents on the existing duties, responsibilities and accountability in Edo State.
Hypothesis Two
H1: There is a significant different between the perception of the respondent group on the usefulness of the audit reports for investment decision making.
TABLE 19:Results of Hypothesis two
GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III
145 80 15
215 30 45
270 65 70
80 52 16
196 12 40
172 44 60
138 9 42
66 39 24
69 24 9
78 4 26
38 18 12
32 2 4
9 1 1
8 4 2
7 2 1
1523 386 367
X = 101.53 X = 25.73 X = 24.46
Source: Field Survey 2015
Total mean= 101.53 + 25.73 + 24.46/3
= 151.72/3 = 50.57
SSb= (101.53 ‘ 50.57)2 + (25.73 ‘ 50.57)2 + (24.46 ‘ 50.57)2
=2596.92 + 617.02 + 681.73
= 3895.67
df = k ‘ 1, k = 3, 3 ‘ 1 = 2
Msb = 3895.67/2 = 1947.83
To get the Sum within the Group
Group I
SSw = 1523 ‘ ‘(101.53)’^2/20
= 1523 ‘ 515.41 = 1007.59
df = k ‘ 1, k = 20 ‘ 1 = 19
Msb = 1007.59/19 = 53.03
Vb/Vw = 1947.83/53.03 = 36.73
Group II
SSw = 386 ‘ ‘(25.73)’^2/20
= 386 ‘ 33.10 = 352.90
df = K ‘ 1, K = 20, 20 ‘ 1 = 19
Msb = 352.90/19 = 18.57
V”b/Vw = 1947.83/18.57 = 104.89
Group III
SSw = 367 ‘ ‘(24.46)’^2/20
= 367 ‘ 29.91 = 337.09
df = K ‘ 1, K =20, 20 ‘ 1= 19
Msb = 337.09/19 = 17.74
Vb/Vw = 1947.83/17.74 = 109.79
TABLE 20: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Source of Variance DF Sum of Square(SS) Mean Square(MS) F-calculated Critical Value of F Signature Decision
Between Group K-1
3-1=2
3895.67
1947.83
Within Group N-1
20-1=19
1697.58
89.34
21.80
3.52
S Reject Null
Source: Field Survey 2015
Decision:
From the analysis, F-ratio distribution, the critical value of F with 2 and 19 degree of freedom at 0.05% level of significant is 3.52, since the computed value of 21.80 is greater than the critical value of 3.52,the null hypothesis may be rejected. This implies that, there is a positive relationship between the perceptions of respondents group on the usefulness of a valid report for investment decision making.
Hypothesis Three:
Hi: There is a significant difference in the perception of the respondents groups on the existence of audit expectation gap in the public sector accountability process in Edo State.
TABLE 21:Results of Hypothesis three
GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III
425 25 45
340 45 35
65 25 30
185 50 25
144 12 32
208 56 24
68 8 16
136 56 24
27 36 30
48 18 33
141 36 48
126 18 36
14 28 12
8 10 22
120 32 16
40 8 8
6 1 2
3 1 0
6 0 1
10 1 8
2120 466 447
X=106.00 X=23.30 X=22.35
Source: Field Survey 2015
Total mean = 106 + 23.30 + 22.35/3
= 151.65/3 = 50.55
SSb = (106 ‘ 50.55)2 + (23.30 ‘ 50.55)2 + (22.35 ‘ 50.55)2
= 3074.70 + 742.56 + 795.24
=4612.50
df= K ‘ 1, K = 3, 3 ‘ 1 = 2
Msb= 4612.50/2 = 2306.25
To get the Sum within the Group
Group I
SSw = 2120 ‘ ‘(106)’^2/20 = 2120 – 561.80 = 1558.20
df = N ‘ 1, N = 20, 20 ‘ 1 = 19
=1558.20/19 = 82.01
Vb/Vw = 2306.25/82.01 = 28.12
Group II
SSw = 466 ‘ ‘(23.30)’^2/20 = 466 ‘ 27.14 = 438.86
df = N ‘ 1, N = 20, 20 ‘ 1 = 19
= 438.86/19 = 23.09
Vb/Vw = 2306.25/23.09 = 99.88
Group III
SSw = 447 ‘ ‘(22.35)’^2/20 = 447 ‘ 24.97 = 422.03
df = N ‘ 1, N = 20, 20 ‘ 1 = 19
= 422.03/19 = 22.21
Vb/Vw = 2306.25/22.21 = 103.83
TABLE 22: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Source of Variance DF Sum of Square(SS) Mean Square(MS) F-calculated Critical Value of F Significant Decision
Between Group (k-1)
3-1=2
4612.50
2306.25
Within Group (N-1)
20-1=19
2419.09
127.31
18.11
3.52
S Reject Null
Total 7031.59
Source: Field Survey 2015
Decision:
The table above shows that the calculated F-value is 18.11, which results as a difference in the perception of the respondents group on the existence on audit expectation gap in the public sector accountability process in Edo State. The critical value however at 0.05 level of significance and degree of freedom of 2 and 19 is 3.52. This implies that there is a significant relationship between the perceptions of the respondents group on the existence of the audit expectation gap in the public sector accountability process in Edo State.
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary of the Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Summary of Findings
It was discovered from the expired execution that there is a significant relationship between the perception of the respondent on the existing duties and responsibilities of elected public officers.
That there is a positive relationship between the perception of respondents groups on the usefulness of a valid report for investment decision making.
That there is a positive relationship between the perception of the respondents groups on the existence of audit expectation gap in the public sector of Edo State.
It was also revealed that the government of Edo State has not been delivering dividend of democracy as expected by the general public.
It was also discovered that the cause of audit poor professional code of conduct and ethical value constitutes the major failure on the part of government to provide the necessary information for public consumption.
Findings revealed that there is a weakness in the internal control system which facilitate manipulation and malfeasance being perpetuated by officers and government functionaries.
5.2 Conclusion
The study investigated the expectation gap in the public sector of accountability process. Accountability and transparency provide the enabling environment for the public to justify the true picture or reflection of good governance in any given circumstances. Whenever there is lack of accountability and transparency in public domain, expectation gap will set in. It is necessary therefore for all those who are elected or are holding public offices to play their role at any given point and they should take the responsibilities to account for action for their thinking, document and back by supporting document to evidence claim in the document.
The electorates are not getting the expected benefits from elected officers and the thinking is that something must be done to correct such by not voting for the party in power. EFCC and ICPC have not lived to expectation even when the electorates complain about elected officer(s) about corruptions the body (ies) turn their eyes other way round.
5.3 Recommendation
Where incidence of audit expectation gap process is manifested in the public sector, the government are found to be complacent about their responsibilities or duties to provide the necessary social goods and accounting information to back up their claims.
Hence, there is need for the public elected officers to live up to expectation in order to minimize expectation gap process.
Corrupt environment, non-compliance with IPSAS, responsibility in the legal system gives room for alternative accounting treatments and poor personal and professional code of conduct and ethical value have been the cause of the poor governance practice in Edo State.
The fight against corruption in both public and private sectors must continue not only in Edo State alone but in Nigeria at large and this could be massively supported by all if these practices are to be arrested. The effort of regulatory bodies in monitoring budgets and all government transactions must be encouraged to promote transparency, integrity and reliability on financial reports and information could be strengthened so that the general public and other users could build confidence and trust.
Finally, the scope for choice of accounting method can be minimized by reducing the numbers of permitted accounting methods or be specifying circumstance in which each method should be used, since government parastatal, agencies and ministries choose its method which produced the desire picture in one accounting year will then be forced to use the same method in future circumstance where the result may be less favourable.
5.4 Contribution to knowledge
Apart from the fact that the study will form a basis of future reference in this area of study, the knowledge of the existence of expectation gap shows to the public that government lacks transparency in governance and hence not maintaining accountability in terms of service delivering.
REFERENCES
Achua, J.K. (2009). Reinventing governmental accounting for accountability assurance in Nigeria.Nigerian Research Journal of Accountancy, 1(1), 1-16.
Adebayo, A. (2004). The development of local government in Nigeria since pre-colonial era to 1999 constitution. Polycom, 2(2).
Adegite, E. O. (2010). Accounting, accountability and national development.Nigerian Accountant, 43(1), 56-64.
Adegoroye, G. (2005).Mainstreaming ethics and professionalism in the public service: The Nigerian experience. A Paper Presented at the Conference on the African Charter and Related Reforms, Swakopmund, Namibia, 3-7 October.
Adesoji A. A (2013). Good governance and accountability in Nigeria’s developmental dilemma. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2).
Agbadudu, A.B. (2009).Basic Statistics for Management Students and Practitioners.Benin City:Ambik Press.
Agbonifoh, B.A. & Yomere, G.O. (1999). Research Methodology in the Social Sciences Education.Benin City:Uniben Press.
Akomolede,T.I.& Akomolede, O.B.(2012).Good governance, rule of law andconstitutionalism in Nigeria.European Journal of Business and Social Sciences,1(6).Retrived from URL: http://www.ejbss.com/recent.aspx.
Almer, R.& Brody, R. (2002). An empirical investigation of content ‘ dependent communications between auditors and bankers.Managerial Auditing Journal, 17(8).
Anyafo, A.M. (1996). Public Finance in a Developing Economy: The Nigerian Case. Enugu: B & F Publications, UNEC.
Anyanwu, J. C. (1997). Nigerian Public Finance. Onitsha: Joanee Educational Publishers Limited.
Appah, E.&Oyadonghan, J. K. (2011).Role theory and the concept of audit expectation gap in south-south, Nigeria.Current Research Journal of Social Sciences, 3(6).Retrieved from http://www.maxwellsci com/print/crjss/v3-445-452.
Appah, E. (2008). Financial Management: Theory, Strategy and Practice. Port Harcourt: Ezevin Printing and Publishing Company.
Appah, E. (2009). Value for money audit: A viable tool for promoting accountability in the Nigerian public sector.Nigerian Accountant, 42(2).
Asma’u,S.M & Ibrahim,K.M. (2014). Assessment of the public service reforms in promoting public accountability in Nigeria’s democratic era. (1999-2009).JORIND 12(1).www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorindaccessed 10th August,2015
Bedde, D. I., Cooper, S. & Leydens H. (2005). Expectations of users of financial information with regard to the task carried out by auditor. http://www.feb.urgent.be/foe/research/wp/paper/up-99-75.pdf-22No2005.
Beek, G. W. (1974). Public accountants in Australia, their social role, Melboune: Australia AccountingResearch Foundation.www.arabianjbmr.com/
Chukwuebuka, C.C.& Chidubem,I. V. (2011). The political economy of public service accountability in Nigeria.Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review 1(4)www.arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/OM_VOL_1_(4)/2.pdfnaccessed 11th August,2015ces and
Coker, O. (2010). Accountability in third sector organisations: What role for accounting?Nigerian Accountant,43(1), 23-29.
Corporate Governance Code in Nigeria. (2005). Lagos: SEC. Companies and Allied Matter Act (1990) Lagos: Nigeria.
Dada,J.B., Udoaka, E.E.& Dada,E.O. (2013). The imperative of good governance for sustainable democracy in Nigeria.African Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2) www.sachajournals.comaccessed 11th August,2015.
Dana, G. (2011). Audit expectation gap in the public sector in Romania. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 20(2), http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/71959473/audit-expectation-gap-public- sector-romania.
David,M. (2013). Accountability practice in Kenya’s public service: Lessons to guide service improvement.International Journal of Business and Management Review 1(4) www.ea-journals.org accssed 16th August,2015.eume 2,
Gloeck, J. D.& Jager, H. (1993). The audit expectation gapin the Republic of South Africa. working paper, School of Accountancy, University of Pretona.
Godsell, D. (1992). Legal liability and the audit expectation gap. Singapore Accountant, 8(4).
Haslida, A. H. (2013). Transparency, trust and confidence in the public sector. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 13(I).http://www.bjournal.co.uk/BJASS.aspx. Accessed 16th August,2015.
Ibietan, J. (2013). Corruption and public accountability in the Nigerian public sector: Interrogating the omission.European Journal of Business and Management, 5(15) www.iiste.org. Accessed 10th August,2015
Ibietan, J.I.& Ajayi,O.O. (2015). The governing elite and democratic consolidation in Nigeria:An appraisal of the fourth Republic. Journal of Human and Social Science Research, 6(1).Accessed 16th August,2015 from www.oricpub.com.
Ikazobor, E. (2009). The changing responsibilities of external auditors in corporate governance.The Nigeria Accountant Journal, 42(1).
Ilufoye, S.A. (2010). Democracy and good governance: Nigeria’s dilemma.African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 4(6).
International Federation of Accountants, (2001). Governance in the public sector: A governing body perspective. International Public Sector Study. Retrieved on 8/7/2013 fromhttp://www.ifac.org.
Kabir, T. H. (2013). Good governance and new public financial management reform in Nigeria. A Paper Presented at the Executive Mandatory Professional Training Programme for Fellows of the Chartered Institute of Finance and Control of Nigeria held at the Grand Ibro Hotel, Wuse, Abuja. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/3710205/.
Kaufman, D. (2005). Myths and realities of governance and corruption. WorldBank Governance Programme, Washington, DC.
Koh, K. A. & Woo, E. S. (1998). The expectation gap in auditing. Management Auditing Journal, 13(3).
Le,T.N.(2012). Application of IPSAS standards to the Vietnamese government accountability and financial statement. Thesis presented to the department of accounting, university of Tampere, Vietnamhttp://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/.
Lee, T. & Azham, A. (2008). The audit expectation gap: A review of the contributing factors. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 5(2).
Lee, T. A. (1970). The nature of auditing and its objectives.Accountancy, 81, 292 ‘ 296.
Leung, P., Caram, P., Cosserat, G. & Gill, G. (2004).Modern Auditing and Assurance Services (2nd ed). Australia: John Wiley and Sans.
Maccarrore, E. (1993). Using the expectation gap to close the legal gap. CPA J. 63.
Mahdi,S., Ali, M.& Zhila, A. (2009). Audit independence and expectation gap: Empirical evidences from Iran. International journal of Economics and Finance, 1(1) www.ccsenet.org journal.html accssed 16th August,2015
Majella,G. (2013). Improving public sector finance.Accountants Today.http://www.mia.org.my/at/at/2013/02/pg12Improving_Public_Sector_Finance.pdf
McEroe, J. E.& Martens, S. C. (2009). Auditors and investors perception of the expectation gap. Accounting Horizon, 15(4).
Nur,B.A. B., Muslim, H.S.M.& Zakiah, S.(2011). Enhancing Malaysian public sector transparency and accountability: Lessons and issues. European Journal of Economics,Finance and Administrative Sciences, 31. Retrieved from http.//www.eurojournals.com.
Oghuma, R. I. (2011). An Empirical study of audit expectation gap in Nigeria. Journal of Management Sciences, 2(11).
Ojiakor, N. (2009). Nigerian socio-political development: Issues and problems.Enugu: John Jacobs Classic Publishers.
Okoh, L. & Ohwoyibo, O. (2010). Public accountability: Vehicle for socio-economic development of Nigeria.International Journal of Investment and Finance, 3(1&2).
Olateju, O.L.,Adul-Azeez, I.A, & Alamutu, S. A. (2011).Project management practice in Nigeria public sector: An empirical study.Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(8).Retrieved from;http://www.ajbmr.com/article
Olomiyete,I. A. (2014). Accountability and financial reporting issues in Nigeria: Considering a change from cash accounting to accrual accounting. International Journal of Management Sciences and Humanities, 2(1). Retrieved from;www.ijmsh.com
Omopariola, O. (2002). Nigeria’s financial management nightmare. Paper presented at Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife on12th February.
Omopariola, O. (1991). The defects of the government budget as a framework for performance evaluation of the Nigeria public service. Ife Journal of Economics and Finance, 1.
Onuorah, A.C.& Appah, E.(2012). Accountability and public sector financial management in Nigeria. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 1(6). Retrieved from; http://arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/OM_VOL_1_(6)/1.pdf
Porter, B. (1993). An Empirical study of the audit expectation performance gap. Accounting and Business Research, 24(93).
Premchand, A. (1999). Public Financial Accountability in Schviavo-Campo.2nd(ed). Governance, Corruption and Public Financial Management. Asian Development Bank. Manila, Philippines. Retrived on the 7/8/2013 from www.adb.org.
Rafiu,O.S & Oyedekun,A. (2007). Auditing and accountability mechanism in the public sector. The international Journal of Applied Economics and Finance, 1, (45-54).doi: ijaef.2007.45.54.
Reiter, S. A. & William,A. (2000). The History and Rhetoric of Auditor Independence Concepts. Binghamton-University. Retrieved fromhttp://lesi.man..ac.uk/ipa/papers/44.
Salehi, M. (2007). An empirical study of corporate audit expectation gap.Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Mysore.
Semius, B. A. & Olayinka M. V. (2011). An empirical investigation of audit expectation gap in Nigeria. Africa Journal of Business Management, 5(19). Retrieved on 26th of November 2012 from http://www.academicjournals.org/ASBM.
Sikka, P., Puxty, A., Willmoth, H. & Cooper, C. (2003). The impossibility of eliminating the expectation gap: Some Theory and Evidence, Critical perspectives on Accounting, 9(3).
Strom, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies.European Journal of Political Research, 37, 261-289.
Strom, K., M”ller, C. W.& Bergman,T. (2003).Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. (eds.) Oxford: OUP.
Transparency International (2010). Nigerian Ranking in the Corruption Index.
Ugwoke, R.V.& Onyeanu, E.O. (2013). Inadequacies and redundancies in the principal financial authorities that guide public sector accounting and financial management in Nigeria.Research Journal of Finance and Accounting,4(1).Retrieved from http://www.iiste.org/journals/index.php/RJF/article/download/4010/4167
Ukaogo,V.(2013).Transpency and Accountability in Nigeria.A Journal of Constitutional Development,11(3).
United Nations (1999). Transparency and Accountability in Government Financial Management, United Nations, New York. Retrieved on 2/4/2011 fromunpan.1.un.org/intradoc/group/public/documents/un/unpan
Uzoagulu, A.E.(1999). Pratical Guild to Writing Research Project in Tertiary Institution. Enugu: Johnson Jacobs Classic Publisher.
Victor, M.B. (2014).Ethics and accountability in public service of Nigeria: The obligation theory perspective. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(3). Retrieved from www.iosrjournals.orgaccessed 16th August,2015.
Yusuf, S. A. (2003). Sampling Techniques Contemporary Social Sciences Research Methods:A Practical Guilds. Eds. Agbola, T. and Co.
APPENDIX: SAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE
Department of Accounting
Benson Idahosa University
Benin City
Edo State.
16th February, 2014.
Dear Sir/Madam,
REQUEST FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION IN COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
I am a postgraduate student undergoing the M.Sc Accounting programme of the above named University. As part of the requirement of the programme, I am undertaking a survey on EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF AUDIT EXPECTATION GAP IN PUBLIC SECTOR IN EDO STATE.
In this regard you have been duly selected as a member of the sample. We need your co-operation for the completion of the attached questionnaire. Any information given will be used only for this research work and it will be treated with confidentiality.
Your maximum co-operation would be highly appreciated.
Yours Faithfully,
”
Ibhawaegbele,F.A. Peter
SECTION A: PERSONAL DATA
Please tick the option you choose from the following question outlined below.
SEX Male ( ) Female ( )
MARITAL STATUS Married( ) Single( ) Window( ) Divorce ( )
AGE 18-30( ) 31-42( ) 43-60( ) 61-80 ( )
QUALIFICATION O-Level( ) Diploma/OND/NCE( ) HND/B.Sc ( ) M.BA, M.Sc ( ) PhD( ) Professional qualification ( )
What department do you work? Accounts ( ) Personnel ( ) Marketing ( ) Production ( ) Audit ( ) Others ( )
Working experience: Below 5 years ( ) Less than 10 years ( ) Less than 15 years ( ) 16 years and above ( ).
SECTION B.
All Government financial statements should be audited to ensure truthfulness, transparency and reliability of accounting information. Agree ( ) Strongly agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Undecided ( ).
Audited financial statements of government should be free from material errors, fraud or irregularities. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Audit is to ensure accuracy and legitimacy of accounting records. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
An audit is to ensure government compliance with the constitution, standards and other regulatory bodies. Agree( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Audit is to detect frauds errors, irregularities, inefficiency and wastages in government operations. Agree( ) Strongly Disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( ).
An audit is to ensure fairness and completeness of financial accountability. Agree( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided( )
Government is primarily responsible for the truthfulness, accountability and reliability of financial records. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
An auditor should be liable for fraudulent or misleading information contained in financial records. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Auditors should disclose in the audit report any fraud, misappropriation and mismanagement of public funds. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Auditors should be held for losses sustained by the public if they failed to detect and report fraud/embezzlement in financial statements. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Audit report do assist the public to measure the performance of the government in place. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Do past audit opinion reflect true and fair view of financial statements? Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Do government intimidate auditor to reflect their mind. Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Has the government been delivery the dividend of democracy? Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Do the auditor of the government has the right and power to obtain information and explanation needed by him? Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided ( )
Are the staff managing the accounting functions of good standard or quality? Agree ( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Undecided( ).