Former Chairman of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, James Klutse Avedzi, has cautioned against treating Auditor-General reports as infallible, stressing the need for proper verification and parliamentary scrutiny before conclusions are drawn.

Responding to concerns about public trust in the Auditor-General’s findings, particularly in light of corrections such as the alleged “transpositional error” in Frank Kpodo’s case, Mr Klutse Avedzi said the reports, while authoritative, are still produced by humans and therefore subject to errors.

“The Auditor-General is a human being and can make mistakes. It is always better to cross-check and verify again,” he said.

He explained that under the constitutional process, Auditor-General reports are submitted to Parliament, where they are examined and debated, particularly by the Public Accounts Committee, before final conclusions are reached.

According to him, this parliamentary scrutiny is the appropriate stage for addressing inconsistencies and ensuring accuracy before the public forms conclusions based on audit findings.

Mr Klutse Avedzi cautioned that when media organisations or individuals interpret and publish audit findings before parliamentary review, there is a risk of misrepresentation and reputational harm.

“These reports are meant to be properly reviewed by Parliament and its committees. It is not for individual media houses or opinions to conclude on them before that process is complete,” he said.

He added that following the proper parliamentary process would ensure that errors or discrepancies are addressed in a structured manner, helping to preserve institutional credibility and public trust.

“In that way, the integrity of the Auditor-General is also protected,” he noted.