The Royal Audit Authority’s (RAA) finding of nearly Nu 10 billion (B) in financial irregularities during FY 2024–25 is understandably alarming at first glance. However, the report warrants careful reading to avoid misinterpretation and to encourage a constructive and informed public response.
No Cause for Panic, But a Call for Attention
A key message from the RAA’s report is that the overwhelming majority of cases are errors, not corruption. According to the findings, 99.92% of the total irregularities were classified as errors—largely procedural lapses such as weak internal controls, inadequate documentation, non-compliance with financial rules and inefficiencies in implementation.
Only 0.08% of the total amount was categorized as fraud, and those cases have already been referred to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) for further investigation.
“The classification of irregularities is intended to clearly separate willful misconduct from administrative and systemic weaknesses,” the RAA stated. “This distinction is important to ensure that corrective actions are proportionate and effective.”
Focus on Systems, Not Just Individuals
The report also signals that public concern should be directed more towards systems and controls rather than solely towards individual wrongdoing. The concentration of irregularities in large hydropower projects reflects the scale and complexity of mega infrastructure investments, where even small procedural lapses can result in large financial implications.
“Large projects require commensurately strong governance systems,” an RAA official noted. “Where internal controls and supervision are weak, errors can accumulate despite the absence of fraudulent intent.”
While individual accountability remains essential, the report points to structural gaps—such as delayed corrective action, inadequate oversight and weak internal control mechanisms—that require systemic reform.
Citizens, therefore, should demand stronger institutions and better supervision, not only punitive action against individuals.
Oversight Is Working — and That Matters
The detection, classification and disclosure of these irregularities also demonstrate that Bhutan’s oversight mechanisms are functioning.
“The purpose of audit is not merely to find fault, but to identify weaknesses early and prevent future losses,” the RAA emphasized. “Audit findings should be viewed as opportunities for improvement.”
Importantly, several major institutions reported zero irregularities, showing that compliance is achievable when rules and controls are properly followed. This, too, reflects transparency rather than failure.
Expect Action, Not Just Reports
Public confidence, however, depends on what happens after audit reports are issued. Citizens have a legitimate expectation that: recoverable amounts will be recovered; weak controls will be strengthened; responsible officials will be held accountable; and repeated errors will decline over time.
“Audit reports do not end with publication,” the RAA noted. “Agencies are legally required to implement recommendations, and follow-up actions are pursued in accordance with the Audit Act of Bhutan.” It implies that for the public, sustained attention to implementation and follow-up matters more than headline figures.
Guard Against Sensationalism
There is also a risk that large figures such as “Nu 10 billion” may be misused to generate fear, mistrust or political narratives. The RAA has taken care to distinguish between fraud and errors precisely to prevent such misunderstanding.
“Responsible public discourse should be grounded in facts and context,” an RAA official cautioned. “Misinterpretation can undermine trust in institutions that are meant to protect public resources.”
A Call for Reform, Not Distrust
Ultimately, these funds belong to the people and are intended for schools, hospitals, roads, livelihoods and development programmes. Even non-fraudulent errors can delay services and reduce value for money.
The report should therefore be seen as a warning signal, not a verdict of failure. It underscores that while Bhutan’s audit and oversight systems remain robust, public financial management—especially in large projects—must improve.
“Strong institutions are built by acknowledging weaknesses and correcting them,” the RAA stated. “Public engagement should support reform, not cynicism.”
The most constructive public response, then, is informed concern, sustained pressure for reform, and continued trust in oversight institutions—rather than outrage or apathy.
Nidup Lhamo
From Thimphu
