As provided under the Public Financial Management Law No. 17 of 2019 and the Auditor General Law No. 14 of 2023, once an audit is concluded, the Auditor General is required to submit a written report to the Authorized Officer of the concerned public institution. The report should set out the audit findings, audit recommendations, and the matters requiring corrective action. In turn, the Authorized Officer is expected to provide the Office of the Auditor General with a written response explaining the actions taken, the measures planned, and the status of implementation of the recommendations issued.
These reports and recommendations usually address matters that are central to sound public financial management and institutional governance. They include issues related to safeguarding public assets, continuity of operations, revenue administration, adequacy of controls, and the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of public resources. They also cover weaknesses in internal control and oversight arrangements, deficiencies in recordkeeping, inadequate procedures for protecting public resources, and the extent to which an institution has acted on previous audit recommendations and relevant resolutions of the Budget & Finance Committee (BFC) of both Houses of the Federal Parliament of Somalia.
The purpose of an audit is not limited to identifying financial misstatements, non-compliance with laws and regulations, or administrative weaknesses. Nor is an audit limited to the issuance of annual reports. Audit serves a wider public purpose. It supports good governance, transparency, accountability, and sound stewardship of public resources. Guided by the Office of the Auditor General’s Law, the Public Financial Management Law, the National Procurement Law No. 22 of 2016 and its amendment No. 20 of 2020, together with other applicable laws and regulations, the audit function provides recommendations intended to strengthen systems, improve controls, and promote better management of public funds and assets. For this reason, the real value of an audit report becomes visible when public institutions implement the recommendations issued to address identified weaknesses and sustain institutional improvement.
Failure to implement audit recommendations can increase control risk, allow weaknesses to persist, and create conditions in which fraud, waste, abuse, and irregular expenditure are more likely to occur. Over time, this weakens service delivery, reduces institutional accountability, and undermines public confidence in government. In this sense, non-implementation is not a minor administrative matter. It is a governance concern with direct implications for the use of public resources and the quality of services provided to citizens.
The implementation of audit recommendations is especially important at a time when Somalia is working to strengthen public institutions, improve administrative systems, and build public trust in government services. Audit recommendations should therefore not be viewed as blame or criticism. They should be understood as practical measures for addressing weaknesses, improving compliance, strengthening internal control, and reinforcing institutional performance. When recommendations are accepted and implemented in a timely and serious manner, they help institutions improve operational management, protect public revenue, and strengthen coordination across departments and agencies.
In practice, a number of institutions within the Federal Government of Somalia have implemented audit recommendations and achieved visible results. These improvements include a reduction in recurring findings, better budgetary control, stronger staff capability and development, improved registration and management of contracts and agreements, stronger recordkeeping, especially through the use of electronic systems, and the application of segregation of duties. These measures are essential for reducing the risk of fraud and error, preventing unauthorized actions, and strengthening the overall control environment within public institutions.
For example, before the Special Audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General on the visa extension service provided by the Immigration and Citizenship Agency and the work permit service provided by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, government revenue generated from those two services during 2021 and 2022 was approximately US$5 million. Following that audit, however, government revenue from the same two services during 2023 and 2024 rose to nearly US$15 million, demonstrating a meaningful improvement achieved by those entities after implementing the recommendations of the Office of the Auditor General.
A review of the implementation trend for audit recommendations between 2018 and 2024 shows that progress has not always been consistent. In 2018, only 6 percent of recommendations were implemented, while 94 percent remained unimplemented. In 2019, implementation rose to 24 percent. In 2020, it reached 34 percent. In 2021, it declined to 13 percent, suggesting that there were still gaps in understanding the purpose and importance of acting on audit recommendations. In 2022, implementation rose again to 35 percent, while in 2023 it stood at 30 percent. This pattern shows that implementation was improving in some periods, but that the progress was not yet stable or fully embedded in institutional practice.
The 2024 data present a more encouraging picture. Following sustained awareness efforts, implementation of the new audit law, improved engagement between the Office of the Auditor General and audited entities, and stronger follow-up arrangements, the 2024 results showed marked progress of the recommendations issued to audited institutions, 46.9 percent were fully implemented, 32.7 percent were partially implemented, and 20.4 percent remained pending. This represents a significant improvement. It suggests a stronger understanding of the audit function, greater recognition of the importance of implementation, and a more constructive response from audited institutions. It also indicates that seminars, discussions, awareness sessions, and workshops conducted by the Office of the Auditor General with MDAs and other public institutions are beginning to produce results.
These discussions and accountability engagements, including those involving the Office of the Auditor General and the Budget & Finance Committee (BFC) of Parliament, have also shown that audited institutions often respond to audit in four broad ways. Some institutions resist audits and view them as accusations or interference. Others give little attention to audit and do not treat follow-up as a priority. A third group accepts the findings but delays corrective action. The most constructive institutions are those that treat audit as an opportunity for reform and use recommendations as a basis for strengthening systems, controls, and service delivery. This distinction matters because the impact of an audit depends not only on the quality of the audit itself, but also on the seriousness with which institutions respond to its results.
In conclusion, the implementation of audit recommendations is where the real benefit of the audit begins. It is the point at which findings are translated into corrective action, systems are strengthened, risks are reduced, and public value is protected. The 2024 results show stronger progress than in previous years, but additional effort is still required to translate partial implementation into full implementation and to address outstanding recommendations. In Somalia, where institution-building remains a national priority, acting on audit recommendations is a key means of strengthening public institutions, protecting public resources, and improving service delivery to citizens. The value of an audit report, therefore, lies not only in the findings and recommendations it contains, but in the extent to which those recommendations are implemented and the results they produce in public administration and in the lives of citizens.
