TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.4 Research Questions
1.5 Hypotheses
1.5.1 Rationale for the Hypotheses
1.6 Significance of the Study
1.7 Justification of the Study
1.8 Scope and Delimitation of Study
1.9 Operationalization of Variables
1.10 Definition of Key Terms
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual Framework
2.1.1 Concept of Budgeting
2.1.2 Concept of Budgetary Procedure and Implementation in Nigeria
2.1.3 Concept of Forensic Accounting
2.1.4 Crimes in Implementation of Federal Government Projects
2.1.5 Evolution of Antigraft Agencies and their Functions
2.2 Theoretical Framework
2.2.1 Budgetary Theory
2.2.2 Theories of Forensic Accounting
2.3 Empirical Framework
2.3.1 Investigative and Auditing Support Services on Over Budgeting and
Appropriation
2.3.2 Investigative and Auditing Support Services on Misappropriation of
Budgetary Funds
2.3.3 Investigative and Auditing Support Services in Eradication Uncompleted
Projects despite full Disbursement
2.3.4 Litigation Support Services in Improving Efficiency of Anti-Graft
Agencies
2.3.5 Expert Witnessing in Eradicating Diversion of Unutilized Allocated Funds
2.4 Gaps in the Study
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
3.2 Population
3.3 Sample Size
3.4 Sampling Technique
3.5 Method of Data Collection
3.6 Instrument for Data Collection
3.7 Administration of Research Instrument
3.8 Method of Data Analysis
3.9 Reliability and Validity of Research Instrument
3.10 Ethical Consideration
3.11 Model Specification
3.12 Apriori Expectation
3.13 Model Evaluation Technique and Test of Significance
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSES, RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
4.1.1 Analysis of Respondents Profile
4.1.2 Analysis of Respondents Responses/Descriptive Analysis
4.2 Testing of Hypotheses
4.2.1 Test of Hypothesis (H01)
4.2.2 Test of Hypothesis (H02)
4.2.3 Test of Hypothesis (H03)
4.2.4 Test of Hypothesis (H04)
4.2.5 Test of Hypothesis (H05)
4.3 Test of Main Model
4.4 Discussion and Implication of Findings
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMEDATIONS
5.1 Summary
5.1.1 Summary of Findings
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendations
5.4 Limitation of the Study
5.5 Suggestion for Further Study
5.6 Contribution to Knowledge
References
Appendices
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1.1
Background to the Study
Public budgeting as a field of study has grown tremendously in recent years and budgeting is one of the most important areas in policy making. Budget in the Public sector in Nigeria is a yearly affairs but with poor results as shown by various scholars. The issue of budget implementation according to Oke (2012) has long been a source of concern to the public when one considers its importance on economic growth and development in the nation. However, he stressed further that budgeting has raised challenges in the area of preparation, administration, supervision, monitoring among others, due to change in policy and governance. Ekeocha (2012) opined that through budget, government indicates what to spend, determines what to borrow, and sets policy priorities within overall spending limit so as to influence the economy. There are various definitions to the term budget but a few of these definitions are examined in this study. Samuel and Wilfred (2009) defined budget as a ‘comprehensive document that outlines what economic and non-economic activities a government wants to undertake with special focus on policies, objectives and strategies for accomplishment that are substantiated with revenue and expenditure projections’. Hellriegel, Jackson and Slocum (1991), also described budgeting as a process of categorizing proposed expenditures and linking them to goals. According to Stoner, Freeman and Gilbert (2008) budget is described as ‘a formal quantitative statements of the resources set aside for carrying out planned activities over stipulated periods of time’. They asserted that the wide usage attached to it is the fact that it is stated in monetary terms which makes it easy to compare dissimilar activities and their profit – loss potentials. Ojo (2013) posits that in budgeting, government usually forecast how much can be generated and the spending pattern from all sources available to them. Omolehinwa and Naiyeju (2013) observed that budget in the public sector is a document or a collection of documents that refers to the financial conditions of the government. They further stressed that budget provides indication of revenue flow and that public sector budget is used as an instrument to allocate public resources towards achieving some basic amenities and values. Hence they 2 observed that public decisions must therefore weigh the cost of action against the worth of the activity to society. In spite of budgeting, Nigeria is still at a cross road in terms of infrastructural development across the states of the Federation. Ojo (2013) corroborates earlier submission made by Ahmed (2010) that basic amenities are still lacking in the country in the areas of health, road, education, transportation, electricity, water etc., thus affecting the welfare of the citizenry. It is important to note that in spite of the oil boom, many Nigerians still live in abject poverty, the value of the naira has fallen drastically and the exchange rate of the dollar to the naira is very high. Ahmed (2010) further stressed that the effect of poor planning and execution of budget cannot be ruled out as one of the reasons for the lingering poverty level in the country. Oke (2013) posited that the issue of budget implementation has been a source of concern to the public considering the important impetus of budget implementation on economic growth. Onike (2012) observed that by half of 2011, the impact of the ₦4.8 trillion budgets was yet to be felt in the fiscal year because the budget was not up to 75% implementation. He stressed that capital budget which is a source of funding capital projects has direct impact on the lives of the citizenry but was not implemented. He stated further that practically every year the implementation of budget had been a source of friction between the executive and the legislature. He stressed further that it is not surprising that the Federal government did not implement the capital project as expected in 2012. Oke (2013) on the other hand observed that budgeting and its process remain problematic in the area of preparation and implementation. He noted that there is the need for adequate control aimed at improving effective resource utilization at the budget implementation stage. He reiterated that budget implementation has significant impact on the performance of the economy. Ugoh and Ukpere (2009) observed that the poverty level of most Nigerians in both rural and urban areas is very high. They noted that this might be due to poor budget implementation and the interference of both Federal and State governments. Ezeagba and Adigwe (2015) in table 1.1 below observed that budgetary implementation has dwindled in the country for over a decade. They observed further that an average implementation percentage of disbursed recurrent and capital expenditure between year 2004 and 2013 according to the Central Bank of Nigeria Annual Report varies. The table 1.1 below presents the budget expenditure allocation and average implementation level between years 2004 to 2013.
Table 1.1: Budget Expenditure Allocation and Average Implementation
Percentage (2004 – 2013) in Nigeria (N Billions) Budget RE Exp CA Exp Total AI% 2004 568 350 918 50 2005 1000 617 1618 92 2006 1337 539 1876 92 2007 1485 782 2266 60 2008 1819 673 2492 30 2009 2014 797 2871 20 2010 2755 1854 4609 20 2011 2481 1005 3486 * 2012 2472 1320 3792 20 2013 2629 1620 4249 * TOTAL 18620 9556 28177 Source: Central Bank of Nigeria Annual Reports (2014) as cited in Ezeagba and Adigwe (2015) Key: RE = Recurrent Expenditure; CA = Capital Expenditure; AI% = Average Implementation Percentage; *= Not indicated in the source One may need to ask the following questions –
why was the budget not totally implemented?
What happened to the unexpended money?
What were the reasons for this action or inaction despite full disbursement of fund?
What roles are the anti graft agencies playing to stop this menace in the country?
Given this premise the issue of budget implementation should be given serious consideration.
Dada (2013) describes Forensic accounting as the special practice area of accountancy that describes engagements resulting from actual or anticipated disputes and litigation. Forensic accounting according to him is based upon scientific detection, interpretation and communication of evidences through a thorough investigation of books and records of an accounting system. He stressed further that it is considered to be an independent professional judgment, which can deliver findings as to accounts, inventories, or the presentation thereof that is of such quality and that would be sustainable in some adversarial legal proceeding, or within some judicial or administrative review. Forensic accounting according to him focuses on both evidence of economic transactions and reporting which is as contained within an accounting system, and the legal framework which allows such evidence to be suitable to the purpose(s) of establishing accountability and valuation. Forensic accounting according to Houck, Mary-Jo, Bonnie-Morns, Riley, Robertson, Wells (2006) includes accounting, auditing and investigative skills to assist in legal matters while American Institute of Certified Public Accountant (AICPA) cited in Houck et al (2006) defined forensic accounting as the application of special skills in accounting, auditing, finance, quantitative method, law 4 and research. They stressed further that it encompasses litigation support, investigation and dispute resolution. This implies that forensic accounting is the intersection between accounting, investigation and the law. Ribadu (2005) opined that laws relating to economic and financial crimes, criminal and penal codes are empowered to enforce all the anti- corruption and anti-money laundering laws which in turn lead to the punishment prescribed in the EFCC Establishment Act (2000). This ranges from payment of fine, forfeiture of assets, imprisonment up to five years depending on the nature and gravity of the offence. The mandate of ICPC in line with the Act setting it up according to him is to prohibit and prescribe punishment for corruption, fraud, embezzlement, bribery and forgery perpetrated by Nigerians. Ribadu, (2005) further posited that cases of fraud are prevalent in the Public sector in Nigeria and that every segment of the public service seems to be involved in one way or the other. Despite all the efforts of the government and its agencies, it is very clear that the rate of corruption in Nigeria is very high. Adegbie and Fakile, (2012) posited that Forensic accounting is found to be the best antidote to combat both economic and financial crimes in Nigeria. Scholars such as Omolehinwa (1989), Ughor and Ukpere (2009), Ezeagba and Adigwe (2015) among others have observed that there has been poor implementation of budget and diversion of unspent budget disbursement by government officials in Nigeria. They however noted that if implementation of budget in the Public sector is properly addressed it will lead to creation of wealth through employment generation, improvement in citizen’s welfare, enhancement of price stability and acceleration of the provisions of infrastructure needed to boost the economy of the nation. Faleti and Myrick (2012) observed that a number of visible bottlenecks are associated with budget implementation; they include non-release, partial release or delay in the release of approved funds for budgeted expenditure. They stressed further that sometimes funds allocated for a particular quarter are made available only at the end of that quarter which make budget implementation difficult. The study, therefore examined the extent to which budget was implemented by the Federal Government of Nigeria between years 2009 to 2015 and how Forensic accounting techniques can be used to resolve problems that may arise from poor budget implementation in the Public sector.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Budget implementation is an important tool of a functioning government. The issue of budget implementation has been of great concern to Nigerians. In the education sector for instance, Bamiro and Adedeji (2010) observed that the National Universities Commission (NUC) coordinates the budget of all Federal Universities based on the template provided by the budget office. The issue of budget implementation in territory institutions for instance is the responsibility of the heads of institutions and their governing councils. As cited in Bamiro and Adedeji (2010), the amount released for capital projects to Federal Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education between 2006 and 2008. According to them in year 2006, the amount released for capital projects to the Universities was ₦6,412,015,000, in year 2007 ₦8,285,015,000 was released while in year 2008 ₦13,958,579,185 respectively. To Polytechnics, in year 2006 the fund released for capital projects was ₦2,164,746,264, in year 2007 ₦2,424,746,264 was released while in year 2008 ₦3,578,057,860 was released respectively. To Colleges of Education, in year 2006 ₦3,063,175,000 was released, in year 2007 ₦4,991,020,000 was released while in year 2008 ₦2,883,329,309 was released for capital projects. The amount released for capital projects according to them amounts to 10.7% of the total allocation to the tertiary institutions. The amount though too small, yet calls for questioning. Were capital projects implemented, funds unutilized or diverted considering the deplorable conditions of our tertiary institutions? This is one of the issues that this study investigated. Another