A full report from the Court of Accounts, presented on Friday, August 14, 2026, meticulously detailed a range of fiscal shortcomings after conducting extensive budgetary analyses for multiple fiscal years. The Court's rigorous review covered the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 fiscal years, providing a detailed assessment of past financial management. Its analysis extended to the initial draft finance law for 2025-2026, its subsequent modified version, and the draft finance law for 2026-2027, offering forward-looking insights into proposed budgetary frameworks. The entities subjected to this thorough audit included various ministries, institutions directly attached to ministries, and a diverse array of projects overseen by the government. This broad scope ensured a wide-ranging examination of public financial administration.
Recurrent Fiscal Deficiencies Identified
Observations and findings contained within the Court of Accounts report are categorized in two primary ways: they are either specific to the particular audited entity or each individual budgetary analysis report, or they are identified as recurrent across different works and fiscal periods. The report details a significant number of twenty-four recurrent findings identified during its review of multiple fiscal years, indicating systemic issues within public finance management.
Among these recurring issues, the Court noted a consistent failure to estimate the quantified impact of certain fiscal or non-fiscal measures. This lack of precise quantification hinders effective policy evaluation and financial planning. Alongside this, there was a persistent lack of clarification regarding the application modalities of these measures, leading to potential ambiguities in implementation. The report also notes non-compliance with exemption forecasts, suggesting a deviation from planned fiscal concessions. Non-compliance with established public procurement procedures was observed, raising concerns about transparency and efficiency in government contracting. A low execution rate of contracts was another significant finding, indicating potential bottlenecks in project implementation and service delivery. The non-transmission of legal annexes for draft finance laws also posed a challenge, as these documents are key for a full understanding of the proposed legislation. A particularly significant concern raised is the non-sincerity of the budget deficit, which implies that the reported financial shortfalls may not accurately reflect the true fiscal position.
The report specifically showed the critical issue of exemption overruns, stating that the execution of exemptions has already reached over 120% of forecasts. This substantial overrun indicates a significant deviation from initial projections and has considerable implications for public revenue. The recurrent nature of these findings across various audits points to deep-seated structural and procedural issues within the financial management systems of the audited entities.
Internal Challenges and International Affiliation
The Court of Accounts of Burundi faces a unique challenge as it has not yet joined the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). This lack of affiliation presents a considerable hurdle for the institution in terms of international engagement, limiting its access to global best practices, knowledge sharing, and capacity-building initiatives offered by the worldwide community of supreme audit institutions.
Adding to the complexity, the State Inspectorate General of Burundi is already a member of INTOSAI. The international organization's regulations typically allow for only one supreme audit institution per state to hold membership, to ensure clear representation and avoid duplication. This existing membership by the State Inspectorate General therefore precludes the Court of Accounts from joining INTOSAI directly, despite its critical role in the nation's financial oversight.
Despite its membership, the State Inspectorate General cannot participate in training programs offered by INTOSAI because it fundamentally lacks jurisdictional powers, which are often a prerequisite for such specialized training designed for audit institutions with legal authority. Conversely, the Court of Accounts, which possesses such jurisdictional powers and would greatly benefit from these programs, is unable to attend these training opportunities due to its non-membership status. This paradoxical situation creates a significant gap where neither of Burundi's key audit institutions can fully benefit from INTOSAI's capacity-building initiatives, ultimately impacting the overall effectiveness of national financial oversight.
Parliamentary Oversight and Next Steps
The Court of Accounts faced operational constraints during the period under review. Insufficient funds resulted in the completion of only eight out of twelve planned audits, according to the Court of Accounts. This shortfall in audit execution means that a significant portion of planned oversight activities could not be carried out, potentially leaving certain areas of public finance unexamined. The Court also provided its comments on the draft finance law in May, offering its expert analysis and recommendations on the proposed legislation before its finalization. The institution diligently transmits its full reports to the parliament, which subsequently convenes the managers of the concerned ministries to address the findings and provide explanations for the identified fiscal shortcomings and non-compliance issues. This parliamentary engagement is a key step in ensuring accountability and driving necessary reforms based on the Court's independent assessments.