When the Oversight Body Needs Oversight

Customs Enforcement Agency

In modern states, the strength of institutions is not measured by their headcount or the extent of their powers, but by the degree to which they are subject to accountability, oversight and transparency. No institution is above oversight; indeed, the bodies that exercise enforcement, inspection and supervisory powers are the ones most in need of being themselves subject to independent oversight, to preserve and protect public funds, safeguard the treasury’s rights, uphold the rule of law, and cement citizens’ trust in law enforcement agencies!

The annual report of the State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau (SAACB) for 2025, on the work of the Customs Enforcement Agency for fiscal year 2024, is particularly important not only because it records violations in a government institution, but because it addresses a security oversight body that represents one of the front lines of defense for the national economy, charged with combating smuggling, seizing contraband, protecting public revenues, and enforcing economic laws. This audit covered financial and administrative aspects, the management of vehicles and fuel, warehouses and supplies, in addition to seizure procedures, release from seizure, and management of confiscated items!

The State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau (SAACB)’s annual report for 2025 on the Customs Enforcement Agency’s work for fiscal year 2024 presented a balanced picture: it did not limit itself to pointing out shortcomings, but also documented a number of positive practices worthy of commendation. It noted the establishment of an advanced central operations room linking all directorates electronically, the adoption of patrol follow-up systems, and the linking of warehouses to surveillance cameras, which enhances field oversight and raises follow-up efficiency. It also recorded improvements in the management of some confiscated goods, including the shift to selling seized tobacco at public auction instead of destroying it, a direction consistent with maximizing the use of assets and protecting public funds, whenever legal frameworks permit.

However, the importance of the report lies in the institutional, administrative and financial imbalances it revealed, which require serious remediation because they affect the organizational structure of the agency and its operating mechanisms more than they concern individual performance. These imbalances can be classified into the following axes:

In the legal and institutional framework, the agency suffers from the absence of a specific law or regulation that organizes its work and defines its competencies and its relationship with partner entities, alongside a bloating of the organizational structure and overlap in authorities, which weakens institutional efficiency and limits clarity of accountability. These observations may appear administrative at first glance, but in reality they affect decision-making efficiency, create duplication of responsibilities, and increase the likelihood of weak internal controls. The less clear the boundaries between competencies, the more complicated accountability becomes!

In the area of human resources management, observations of no lesser importance emerge: the report pointed to the continued selection and secondment of personnel without demonstrating the actual need, and to appointment by replacement instead of open competition and public advertisement of vacancies. Whatever the administrative justifications, entrenching the principles of equal opportunity and transparency in recruitment remains one of the most important guarantees for building a professional agency capable of performing its duties efficiently and independently!

As for the financial domain, the report recorded the absence of a detailed budget specific to the agency, noncompliance with some rules governing cash advances, weak documentation of certain expenditures, and bank commissions. These observations may seem accounting in nature, but they in fact reflect the importance of having an integrated financial control system that enables tracking of expenditure, documentary evidence of spending, measurement of resource-use efficiency, and reduction of future financial risks.

Among the most prominent findings of the SAACB’s report, in the areas of management of confiscated items and warehouses, was the observation of large numbers of outstanding cases and the failure to organize confiscated items in a way that would allow for surprise inventory checks!... and goods and vehicles were damaged due to prolonged storage periods and poor preservation conditions, in addition to weak documentation of destruction operations and the absence of details concerning the quantities that were destroyed!

The report also raises the issue of occupational safety and risk management, noting a shortage of protective equipment inside some warehouses, the absence of comprehensive registers for fixed assets, and the storage of supplies and seized items in the same location. These are not merely procedural violations but indicators of the need to modernize the asset and warehouse management system in accordance with modern governance standards!

With regard to oversight of vehicles and fuel, the report recorded weaknesses in control procedures over maintenance work, lack of documentation linking some invoices to specific vehicles, and the absence of evidence that fuel cards were actually used for the vehicles to which they were assigned!

As for the procurement and internal control aspects, the SAACB observed the failure to prepare an annual procurement plan according to the provisions of the Public Procurement Law, alongside weak documentation of some disbursement and humanitarian assistance transactions, and the absence of clear criteria to determine the values of such assistance!

In light of these results, the SAACB recommended issuing a special law for the agency, restructuring the administrative organization, organizing human resources management according to actual needs, adopting appointments based on competence and equal opportunity, preparing an independent budget, strengthening financial oversight, improving management of warehouses and confiscated items, and full compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement Law.

It is to the agency’s credit that it submitted a response to the report within the legal period, and the response was positive, reflecting a willingness to address the observations and implement the required corrective measures.

The report’s findings confirm that strengthening integrity and governance in the Customs Enforcement Agency is not merely an administrative demand but a fundamental condition for protecting public funds, safeguarding the treasury’s rights, and cementing citizens’ trust in law enforcement agencies!

In the end, protecting the national economy does not begin only at crossings or checkpoints, but also starts from within institutions themselves, through building strong governance systems, prudent resource management, and an institutional culture that believes oversight is not a burden on performance but the real guarantee of its sustainability!