Money Waster: Without Clear Journey , Ex Aviation Minister Hadi Sirika Paid N219m As Touring Allowances While in Office

Secrets Reporters

An audit of the financial activities of aviation authority has raised concerns over the payment of N219.08 million in official touring allowances to staff without adequate documentation showing the purpose of the trips or evidence that the journeys were necessary government assignments.

The audit finding, contained in its review of the authority’s expenditure, questioned payments made to several staff members for official trips, saying the vouchers and supporting documents examined did not specify the reasons for the journeys.

According to the auditors, the payments violated the requirement of Financial Regulation 603, which requires government payment vouchers to contain full particulars of the service for which payment is being made.

Rather than providing details of the official assignments, the auditors found that the documents supporting the payments did not adequately explain why the staff travelled, what official duties they were expected to perform or what outcomes were produced from the trips.

The total amount involved N219,086,148.28 was paid as touring allowance to staff of the authority.

The audit described the expenditure as irregular, saying it could not be accepted as a proper charge against government funds unless the authority provides evidence establishing the purpose and legitimacy of the trips.

Millions Paid Without Stated Purpose

Official touring allowances are intended to cover expenses incurred by government employees while travelling on authorised official assignments. Such payments therefore require documentation showing that the journey was undertaken for a legitimate government purpose.

But the audit found that, in this case, payments were made to several staff members without adequate justification. The auditors said their examination of payment vouchers and supporting documents revealed that the reasons for the trips were not specified.

This left the audit team unable to establish from the records whether the journeys were connected to legitimate official assignments or whether the funds were being spent on activities that had not been properly authorised.

The auditors also observed that the touring allowance payments were concentrated among a few staff members, raising additional questions about how official travel opportunities and allowances were being distributed within the authority.

One example highlighted in the audit involved Mr Ahmad Sanni, who was repeatedly granted touring allowances for meetings said to have taken place at the same location over a series of dates that were close together.

According to the audit, the periods included December 6–13, December 20–22, December 25–28, December 31–January 3, January 5–6 and January 12–19.

The audit did not provide details of the amounts paid to Mr Sanni for each trip. However, it used the series of payments as an example of why the authority needed to provide clearer evidence of the purpose of official journeys funded with public money.

The auditors noted that there was no report showing the reasons for the official assignments. That omission, they said, made the expenditure irregular.

Where Did the Money Go?

The audit’s concern is not necessarily that staff travelled without performing any official duties.

Rather, the problem identified is that the available records did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the purpose of the trips.

Government employees can legitimately travel several times within a short period if their duties require it. However, when public funds are used to finance those journeys, the government should be able to demonstrate what the trips were for and why the expenditure was necessary.

In this case, the auditors said the documentation reviewed did not provide that assurance. The absence of detailed information creates a significant accountability gap.

For example, an official travelling to another location for a meeting should ordinarily have records indicating the meeting, its purpose, the official assignment, the destination and, where applicable, evidence that the meeting or assignment took place.

Without such documentation, auditors and the public are left with little means of determining whether the expenditure delivered any value. The problem becomes more significant when the expenditure involves more than N219 million.

A Pattern of Concentrated Payments

Another issue identified by the auditors was the concentration of touring allowances among a small number of staff. Although the audit did not provide a complete breakdown of the beneficiaries or specify the amount received by each individual, it flagged the pattern as noteworthy.

The concentration raises questions about the internal controls governing official travel. Who approves these trips? What determines which staff members are selected? Are the trips contained in approved work plans? Are reports required after officials return? And who verifies that the assignments were actually carried out before further allowances are approved?

These questions become particularly relevant where the same officials repeatedly receive touring allowances over short periods.

In the case cited by the auditors, the series of allowances granted to Mr Sanni covered multiple trips between December and January, including periods that were only days apart.

The audit said there was no report showing the reasons for the assignments.

Without such reports, it becomes difficult to determine whether each trip represented a separate and necessary official engagement or whether public resources were being repeatedly expended without sufficient justification.

The Financial Regulation

The auditors based their concerns on Financial Regulation 603, which requires payment vouchers to be accompanied by full particulars of the service for which the expenditure is being incurred.

The purpose of such a requirement is straightforward: government expenditure must be traceable. A payment voucher should not merely show that money was paid. It should provide enough information to establish why it was paid, who received it, what service it covered and why the expenditure was necessary.

This is particularly important for travel-related expenditure because touring allowances can accumulate quickly when several officials travel repeatedly. Without proper records, government agencies may struggle to distinguish legitimate official travel from unnecessary or poorly documented expenditure.

The audit therefore places the responsibility on management to demonstrate that the N219.08 million was spent for legitimate purposes.

Risk of Spending Because Money Is Available

The auditors identified two key risks arising from the payments. The first was the use of government funds merely because they are available. The second was the possibility that government funds could be used for unbudgeted activities. Both risks speak to a broader issue of financial discipline.

Public funds are not meant to be spent simply because an agency has access to them. Every expenditure should be linked to an approved government purpose and supported by adequate documentation.

Where officials receive allowances without clearly documented assignments, there is a risk that travel expenditure could become driven by the availability of funds rather than actual operational needs.

The audit therefore places the responsibility on management to demonstrate that the N219.08 million was spent for legitimate purposes.

Auditors Demand Evidence or Recovery

The auditors did not recommend that the matter end with an explanation. They requested that the Managing Director provide evidence showing that all beneficiaries actually embarked on official trips for specific purposes.

The purposes of those trips, according to the recommendation, must be clearly stated and supported by evidence. If management cannot provide the required documentation, the auditors recommended that the entire N219,086,148.28 be recovered. They also requested that details of any recovery be made available for audit verification.

That recommendation places a substantial burden on management. It means the authority must now account for more than N219 million in touring allowances by producing evidence capable of demonstrating that the expenditure was legitimate.

The audit finding does not establish that the entire amount was stolen or that the beneficiaries did not undertake any official journeys. It establishes something more specific: the auditors could not find sufficient documentation to justify the expenditure as a proper charge against government funds.

Questions That Remain

The audit raises several questions that management will need to answer. What were the official purposes for which the N219.08 million was spent? How many staff benefited from the allowances? How much did each beneficiary receive? How many trips were undertaken? Who approved the trips? Were the journeys included in approved work programmes? Why were reports not attached to the payment records? Why were touring allowances concentrated among a few staff members? and, in the case of the repeated trips cited by the auditors, what official assignments required Mr Ahmad Sanni to receive touring allowances for meetings at the same location across several closely spaced dates?

Most importantly, if the required evidence cannot be produced, will the money be recovered as recommended by the auditors? for an agency entrusted with public funds, accountability should not end when a payment is approved. It should continue until there is evidence that the expenditure served the public purpose for which it was incurred.

In this case, the audit has identified a N219 million documentation and accountability gap.

Whether that gap represents poor record keeping, weak internal controls, unnecessary expenditure or something more serious cannot be determined from the audit finding alone.

But one thing is clear: the records reviewed by the auditors did not sufficiently explain why hundreds of millions of naira were paid out as official touring allowances.

Until the authority provides the evidence demanded by the audit or recovers the money where it cannot justify the expenditure the N219.08 million remains an unresolved question over how public funds were spent.