The Ministry of Works and Transport has a right to challenge an audit finding, but the public deserves a complete accounting of how its money and assets are managed.
The Ministry of Works and Transport’s rejection of an audit finding that 53 government vehicles worth N$35.5 million were missing from the pool vehicle register raises an important question about public accountability: when government auditors and the institutions they examine disagree, how does the public establish where the truth lies?
The answer cannot be found in competing statements, technical explanations or political accusations. It must be established through complete records, independently verifiable evidence and a willingness by all parties to account for public resources.
The ministry’s explanation deserves consideration. Executive director Jonas Sheelongo maintains that the vehicles were not missing but had been recorded in the Permanent Allocated Vehicle Register, which serves a different purpose from the Pool Vehicle Register. According to the ministry, vehicles assigned permanently to government offices are not required to appear in the register used for vehicles available for short-term rental.
If this interpretation is supported by the applicable accounting procedures and the necessary documentation, the distinction matters. A vehicle absent from one register is not necessarily missing from government records, much less physically unaccounted for.
It would therefore be premature to conclude that the 53 vehicles have been lost, stolen or improperly acquired simply because they were not reflected in the register examined by the auditors.
However, the ministry’s explanation does not make the broader accountability question disappear. Rather, it places the responsibility on government to demonstrate, clearly and conclusively, that every vehicle has been properly recorded, allocated and accounted for.
According to the ministry, only six of the 53 vehicles were procured by the Ministry of Works and Transport, while the remaining 47 were acquired directly by other offices, ministries and agencies. This division of responsibility may explain why procurement and payment documents are held by different institutions. It also illustrates the administrative complexity of managing government assets across multiple departments.
But administrative complexity must never become an excuse for fragmented accountability.
Government needs a reliable system through which the acquisition, payment, registration, allocation, transfer and eventual disposal of every vehicle can be traced. Whether a vehicle belongs in a pool register or a permanent allocation register is a technical question that should be easily resolved by properly maintained, accessible and reconciled records.
The concern extends beyond the 53 vehicles. The audit also reportedly identified 106 vehicles valued at N$22.7 million that were not reflected in the pool register as having been transferred to the Judiciary. The ministry says these vehicles had been permanently allocated before the Judiciary established its own fleet.
Again, that explanation may be valid. But the transfer of public assets between institutions should be supported by documentation that establishes when the transfer occurred, who authorised it, which institution assumed responsibility and how the transaction was recorded.
The public should not have to choose between accepting the ministry’s assurances and assuming the worst about its management of state property. It should be able to examine a reconciled record and reach an informed conclusion.
More questions arise from the 64 permanently allocated vehicles valued at N$20.3 million that were reportedly disposed of during the 2024/25 financial year but were absent from the relevant registers. Disposal is an ordinary part of fleet management, but it must be transparent. Government should be able to identify the vehicles, explain the authorisation for their disposal and account for any proceeds received.
The reported absence of a complete Government Garage summary showing opening balances, acquisitions and closing balances is particularly significant. Without a reliable reconciliation, auditors cannot confidently establish whether the records present a complete picture of government’s vehicle fleet.
This is not merely an accounting technicality. Public assets are purchased with taxpayers’ money. Every weakness in the records makes it harder to determine whether resources are being used efficiently, whether assets are being maintained properly and whether officials are fulfilling their responsibilities.
The ministry is also justified in raising concerns about the audit process. Auditors must strive for accuracy, fairness and consistency, and meaningful engagement with management can help resolve discrepancies before findings are finalised. Where explanations and supporting documents are available, they should be examined.
However, consultation must not become a mechanism for diluting uncomfortable findings or delaying the publication of legitimate concerns. The independence of the Auditor-General is essential to public accountability. Management must have a fair opportunity to respond, but auditors must retain the authority to report findings they consider substantiated.
The appropriate response to disagreement is evidence, not defensiveness.
There are also questions raised by IPC parliamentarian Rodney Cloete that appear to extend beyond the vehicle registers. These include expenditure suspensions, a discrepancy in appropriation figures and outstanding contractual documentation. The ministry’s reported response does not appear to resolve these issues.
They should be addressed separately and specifically, with the Ministry of Finance clarifying the matters within its responsibility. Questions concerning the reported N$1 billion recorded for 25 projects also require sufficient context and documentation before any conclusions can be drawn.
Meanwhile, reports of vehicles remaining idle at the //Kharas regional Government Garage in Keetmanshoop because spare parts were not procured in time highlight another dimension of public asset management. A vehicle that cannot be used because of delayed maintenance is an asset that may be costing the state money without delivering the intended service.
The solution is not simply to buy more vehicles. It is to ensure that existing fleets are properly maintained, allocated according to operational needs and monitored throughout their useful lives.
The ministry should therefore publish a reconciled schedule of the disputed acquisitions, transfers and disposals, including registration numbers, dates, allocations and supporting documentation, subject to legitimate privacy and security considerations. Any remaining discrepancies should be clearly identified, with deadlines and responsible officials assigned for their resolution.
The Windhoek Observer believes that neither an audit finding nor a ministerial rebuttal should be treated as the final word when the evidence remains contested.
Government has a duty to protect public assets. The Auditor-General has a duty to scrutinise their management. Parliament has a duty to demand answers, and the media has a duty to examine the evidence without turning allegations into established facts.
Ultimately, the objective should not be to prove the ministry wrong or to discredit the auditors. It should be to establish an accurate account of public resources and correct any weaknesses exposed in the process.
If the vehicles were properly recorded elsewhere, the ministry should demonstrate this conclusively. If the audit identified genuine gaps, those gaps must be corrected and responsibility established where necessary.
Public confidence depends not on assurances that everything is in order, but on records that prove it. When millions of dollars in public assets are involved, the numbers must add up.
