Parliament

MBABANE – The Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) is grappling with a debt of more than E100 million owed to government, largely arising from court cases, Parliament has heard.

The issue came to light when REPS appeared before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to respond to findings contained in the Auditor General’s report for the financial year ended March 31, 2024.

According to the audit report, the Police Service had outstanding police advances amounting to E114 798 132.30.

The report states that the advances relate to payments made by the Treasury Department on behalf of the police service following court orders and arbitration awards.

The Office of the Auditor General raised concern that no recoveries had been made from officials responsible for the losses incurred by government. It further noted that the losses had not been reported to the Losses Committee, as required under government financial management procedures.

The report explains that the Treasury Department is mandated to settle court judgments on behalf of all government ministries using the Treasury Advance Account (No. 51135). Once payment has been processed, Treasury is expected to prepare a journal adjustment voucher debiting the relevant ministry’s advance account while crediting the Treasury Advance Account.

Under this arrangement, the Police Service is expected to clear the advances from its recurrent budget allocation and, where public funds were lost due to negligence, facilitate recoveries or write-offs through the Losses Committee.

The auditor general warned that failure to recover funds from negligent officers and clear the outstanding advances exposed government to continued financial risk.

“There is a risk of not recovering the outstanding advances from officers who caused the loss to government and not clearing the outstanding balance,” the Office of the Auditor General stated in the report.

The report further emphasised that the police service should assume full responsibility for legal costs arising from its cases and ensure that public funds lost through negligence are recovered from officers found liable after due process.

During the committee proceedings, Assistant Auditor General Ashmond Ngwenya explained that the outstanding advances represented payments already made by Treasury on behalf of the Police Service, which the department was now required to clear.

“This one relates to court cases. Treasury paid the money on behalf of the department, and the department then has to clear the advance,” Ngwenya said.

He stressed that before referring matters to the Losses Committee, the police service should first conduct thorough internal investigations to establish why government lost each case.

“The clearing process involves conducting an internal investigation to determine what led to government losing so much money. One should not rush to the Losses Committee. If negligence by an officer is established, then a recommendation can be made for recovery from the officer concerned,” he said.

However, National Commissioner of Police Vusi Manoma Masango told the committee that the majority of the debt did not arise from negligent conduct by police officers but from unpaid suppliers who successfully sued government after providing services.

“The bigger portion of this money is due to service providers. You find that a supplier was not paid, they take us to court, and when the court orders that they be paid, we then request a budget or supplementary allocation,” Masango explained.

He acknowledged, however, that some of the cases did result from negligence within the police service.

“But there are instances where it is just negligence from police officers,” he admitted.

Assistant Superintendent Simon Simelane elaborated on the financial challenges facing the police service, saying the department was expected to reimburse Treasury after court payments had been made, yet it had no budget to do so.

“What has compounded this issue is that we have to return the money to the Accountant General, but there is no budget to repay it,” Simelane said.

He said the Auditor General had advised the police service to approach the Ministry of Finance for funding to settle the advances.

“We wrote to Finance requesting funds to clear the advance. Finance responded by saying we should include it in our budget. We did so for this financial year. Unfortunately, when the appropriations were made, no money was allocated for that purpose,” he explained.

Simelane added that the police service currently had no savings within its budget that could be redirected towards settling the debt.

“There are no savings in our budget at present, and even if there were, they would not be sufficient to cover this amount,” he said.

Committee members questioned why suppliers were only being paid after securing court judgments instead of being paid when their invoices became due.

Member of Parliament Tsembeni Magongo said the explanations presented by the Police Service raised more questions than answers.

“There is a bit of controversy here. The national commissioner says most of this money relates to court cases involving suppliers. This is shocking. The accountant general is able to pay the money once the matter reaches court, but the supplier was not paid before the case got to court. The accountant general then expects the department to repay the money. Something does not add up,” Magongo remarked.

Nhlambeni Member of Parliament Manzi Zwane said it was important to distinguish between losses caused by negligence and those arising from contractual disputes with suppliers.

“Our concern is that you have to differentiate between cases of negligence and those involving suppliers. We are aware that entities such as ERS use lawyers, as provided by law, to recover money owed to them,” Zwane said.

Ngwenya maintained that further clarification was still required regarding the supplier-related cases.

“I hear the controlling officer, but we were of the view that these are legal costs. If government enters into a contract, there is an agreement and an order. Did the controlling officer receive the service through a valid contract? What led to the parties ending up in court instead of settling the matter?

“If an order was made, it suggests there was a budget available. If the service provider won in court, it means the department breached the contract. We need clarity on that,” he said.

Responding to the concerns, Simelane explained that many of the disputes arose after the police service exhausted its allocated budget despite suppliers continuing to provide contracted services.

“These are contracts with suppliers who provide services. For example, a catering service continues to supply until our budget is depleted and we no longer have funds to pay. When we request a supplementary budget, in many instances we do not receive it. The supplier, understandably frustrated, then resorts to legal action to recover the money owed,” Simelane told the committee.

The exchange highlighted the financial pressures facing the Police Service, with MPs expressing concern that unpaid contractual obligations were escalating into costly court judgments that ultimately placed an even greater burden on public finances through legal costs, interest and Treasury advances that remain outstanding.

The Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) is grappling with a debt of more than E100 million owed to government, largely arising from court cases, Parliament has heard.