When a “Performance Audit” fails the Performance Test

Dear Editor,
The Auditor General’s “Performance Audit: A Review of Asset Management at the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA)” was tabled in the National Assembly to assess how well the NDIA managed public assets between January 2021 and June 2024. However, a closer examination reveals that the report, though titled a performance audit, functions instead as an administrative and operational audit. It focuses on internal compliance and documentation rather than evaluating the NDIA’s effectiveness in fulfilling its statutory mandate. SphereX’s analysis concludes that this misclassification undermines the audit’s credibility and analytical value.

Audit Misclassification
The report claims to be a performance audit but fails to measure the NDIA’s performance in achieving its core mandate – drainage, irrigation, and flood control outcomes. It focuses instead on compliance with internal processes and documentation standards. Such audits are properly classified as operational or administrative, not performance audits as defined under INTOSAI ISSAI 3000.

Disregard for Management’s Responses
Management provided adequate responses to the audit findings, acknowledging some and contesting others. However, the audit narrative ignores these explanations. The responses are not synthesised or reconciled within the main analysis. Findings are presented as final and uncontested – contrary to the INTOSAI requirement for balanced representation of differing views. This omission undermines fairness, violates INTOSAI principles of balanced reporting, and creates an impression of confirmation bias.

Implications for Integrity and Credibility
By neglecting to incorporate management’s positions, the audit loses transparency and analytical balance. Its methodology does not withstand scrutiny under the ISSAI 3000–3100 standards, which emphasise fair treatment of the audited entity’s views, evidence-based conclusions, and evaluation of performance in relation to mandate fulfilment. The result is a report that reads more like a compliance inspection than an evaluative performance audit.

Systemic Weaknesses in Public Audit Governance
This case reveals a broader issue within public audit governance and capacity. Performance audits risk devolving into administrative reviews if not underpinned by robust methodological design and trained auditors. Failure to apply INTOSAI standards can distort institutional accountability and weaken stakeholder trust.
The absence of management reconciliation erodes the legitimacy of the audit process and the Audit Office’s credibility as an independent oversight body.

Recommendations for the Auditor Genera
SphereX recommends several institutional reforms for the Auditor General’s Office:
Clarify audit typology within legislation and practice to distinguish between performance, operational, and compliance audits.
Institutionalise adherence to INTOSAI ISSAI 3000–3100 standards.
Introduce independent peer reviews to strengthen audit quality and impartiality.
Enhance reconciliation protocols to incorporate management responses before reports are finalised.
Build auditor capacity in performance evaluation and results-based assessment.

Recommendations for the NDIA
Given that this audit was tabled in the National Assembly, NDIA’s response must go beyond administrative clarifications. It should present empirical, outcome-based data to demonstrate measurable results in alignment with its statutory mandate.
SphereX recommends that NDIA submit a Performance Accountability Addendum to Parliament with data on asset utilisation, efficiency, and outcomes, including:
Total book value of assets and annual maintenance costs.
Number and value of new assets added during 2021–2024.
Asset utilisation and downtime rates.
Kilometres of drainage canals maintained or constructed.
Number of sluices, pumps, and irrigation structures maintained or built.
Total acreage served and farming households benefiting.
Maintenance cost per kilometre and per acre serviced.
Ratio of recurrent to capital expenditure.
Timeliness of planned projects completed within budget.

A Call for Methodological Recalibration
The Auditor General’s intervention into NDIA’s asset management was well-intentioned but methodologically misdirected. The failure to distinguish between operational compliance and performance evaluation – combined with the neglect of management’s formal responses – undermines the audit’s credibility and limits its utility for reform.
SphereX concludes that a recalibration of performance audit methodology is essential. Without it, future audits risk being perceived not as instruments of accountability and learning, but as procedural critiques detached from performance reality.

Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
Executive Director, Financial & Economic Analysis
SphereX Professional Services Inc