Strengthening the Independence of Supreme Audit Institutions

Across countries, efforts to strengthen SAI independence are progressing, but important gaps remain. Legal frameworks have improved in many areas, yet challenges persist in implementation, particularly in relation to budgetary autonomy, access to information and protection from undue influence. In parallel, limited attention has been paid to informal factors, including the role of trust, communication and institutional culture, despite their significant impact on outcomes.

SAIs operate within a broader accountability ecosystem composed of the executive, legislature, judiciary and other oversight and non-state actors. The effectiveness of this system depends on the quality of interactions between these actors, including the clarity of roles, mutual respect for mandates and the existence of structured and predictable engagement. Weak co-ordination, limited capacity or misaligned incentives within this ecosystem can undermine even well-designed institutional frameworks. Conversely, strong relationships, clear procedures and shared understanding of roles can significantly strengthen SAI independence and impact.

A SAI’s reputation acts as a key safeguard for its independence. Trust in the SAI increases the likelihood that stakeholders will support it when its autonomy is challenged and raises the reputational costs of political interference. At the same time, attempts to weaken independence are often preceded by efforts to undermine the credibility of the institution. Building and maintaining trust is therefore not only a matter of public communication, but a strategic component of institutional resilience.

Trust in SAIs is shaped by both their competence and their values. High-quality, timely and relevant audit work strengthens perceptions of effectiveness, while integrity, transparency, fairness and accountability reinforce perceptions of legitimacy. SAIs that consistently demonstrate these attributes are better positioned to enhance their reputation, increase the uptake of their recommendations and strengthen their role within the accountability system.

The findings and recommendations from this report have broader relevance for other independent public institutions facing similar pressures, including regulators, ombuds institutions and independent fiscal institutions. In particular, the importance of informal dynamics, institutional relationships and trust in shaping de facto independence applies across these bodies. The report therefore offers insights into strengthening institutional resilience across the public governance system.

The report calls for a shift towards a more comprehensive and system-wide approach to SAI independence. Strengthening independence requires not only reinforcing legal provisions, but also improving institutional practices, enhancing co-ordination across actors and actively fostering trust. This includes investing in capacities, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and establishing clear and transparent processes for interaction between SAIs and other stakeholders.

For the executive, priorities include addressing gaps in the assumption of core accountability responsibilities, including accounting, internal control and internal audit. Where these functions are weak or inconsistently applied, SAIs risk being drawn into roles that blur the boundary between management and oversight. Strengthening executive ownership of these functions, alongside improving fiscal transparency and systematic follow-up to audit recommendations, would help restore a clearer functional separation and reduce pressures on SAI independence. Ensuring that any role in appointing SAI leadership is conducted transparently and based on merit is critical, as is carefully assessing the broader implications of legal reforms affecting the SAI’s mandate and the balance of the accountability system.

For the legislature, strengthening the legal and institutional framework governing SAIs remains essential. This includes ensuring transparent and merit-based appointment processes, robust tenure and dismissal protections, and institutional arrangements that safeguard continuity and minimise political influence. Given identified capacity constraints in several contexts, enhancing legislative capacity to analyse and follow up on audit findings, as well as establishing clear procedures for audit requests and report handling, can further strengthen oversight while respecting SAI autonomy and reducing risks of politicised or inconsistent engagement with audit processes.

Other actors also have a role to play. The judiciary contributes not only through formal legal safeguards, but through the credibility and enforceability of those safeguards in practice. Donors can support co-ordinated and context-sensitive reforms. Addressing fragmentation observed across oversight bodies, better collaboration can improve the overall effectiveness of the accountability system.

Finally, SAIs themselves are central to strengthening their independence in practice. SAIs with stronger credibility and stakeholder engagement are better positioned to withstand external pressures. By consistently applying international standards, ensuring robust follow-up of recommendations and maintaining high-quality audit work, they can reinforce their technical credibility. Transparent audit selection processes, proactive communication and meaningful stakeholder engagement can further strengthen trust and visibility. In addition, strong internal integrity frameworks and clear safeguards governing interactions with auditees are essential to mitigate risks of undue influence.

Overall, the report demonstrates that independence is not a static legal condition, but a dynamic outcome shaped by institutions, relationships and trust. By addressing both formal and informal dimensions, and by fostering a well-functioning accountability ecosystem, countries can strengthen the resilience, credibility and impact of their supreme audit institutions.