The AKP’s favoured method - Gaziantep bilked for 6.5 million

Aykut Küçükkaya
 
An “oyster card” scandal has emerged from the Court of Account’s report into the AKP Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality. A shortfall of TRY 6.5 million has been identified in the accounts for the past two years pertaining to “oyster cards” (Card27) used in public transport in Gaziantep since 2006. This shortfall was noted in the Court of Account’s report along with the finding, “Funds are being transferred to another account contrary to the contract with the company operating the smart card system or from the joint account, or another account is being used apart from this account.” The AKP municipality has stated in the reply it gave the Court of Account that the company deposited the six-million shortfall into the account in 2017. This reply did not satisfy the Court of Account. The Court of Account, subjecting the municipality to harsh criticism, has requested an inspection of the eight years between 2006 and 2014 that were excluded from auditing. This request found reflection in the report with the note, “The auditing company only examined the years 2014-2016. The smart card system, on the other hand, started in 2006. As such, the years between 2006 and 2014 were excluded from examination. There is felt to be a need for the years between 2006 and 2016, the period over which the smart card system was put out to tender, to be examined in detail from all aspects.”
 
Millions forgotten about!
 
In summary, the section in the Court of Account’s report under the heading “Failure for the Account of Income Acquired from the Smart Card System used for Public Transport to Reflect the Truth” reads as follows:
 
“As public transport services were transferred by the municipality to Gazi Ulaş, the smart card system was also transferred on 24.06.2016. But, the municipality and E-kent Electronic Fare Collection Systems Joint-Stock Company fell into dispute over the funds that should have been in the bank on this date. From the examination conducted it emerged that, while the amount that should have been in the bank account on 24.06.2016 was TRY 8,622,231.35, there was TRY 2,536,830.50 in the bank account. There consequently appears to have been a shortfall of TRY 6,085,400.85 in the account. The smart card system is used for payment of the entrance charge to the municipal zoo as well as for public transport. A discrepancy between amounts has also arisen in the same way in this account. This account was also examined by the same independent auditing company and it appeared as a result of the examination that there was a shortfall of TRY 297,847.92 in the bank balance. These examinations that were conducted were commissioned by E-kent Electronic Fare Collection Systems Joint-Stock Company. An examination into the veracity of these amounts has not been commissioned by the municipality. It has been documented in the independent auditing company’s report that a shortfall of TRY 6,383,248.77 was observed in the 2016 income account, but it has not been possible for the true extent of this amount to be determined by us.”
 
“We acted meticulously”
 
The Municipality, in the reply it gave the Court of Account, stating that the funds pertaining to the years 2014-2016 were deposited by the company in 2017, asserted that it acted meticulously. It was stated in the reply that, “The amount of TRY 6,085,400.85, identified through the Independent Audit Report that was compiled as being the shortfall in the bank account pertaining to public transport services was paid by being transferred with the advice slip number 101-66133 dated 10.01.2017 by E-kent Joint-Stock Company into the Electronic Fare Collection System account. As is evident, Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality acts meticulously in terms of monitoring the Electronic Fare Collection System, and acts meticulously in terms of avoiding financial loss through the system by commissioning auditing into areas that exceed the expertise of its own staff from competent entities.”
 
Not satisfactory
 
The Court of Account, not satisfied by the municipality’s reply that it acted meticulously, has listed its criticisms of the municipality item by item:
 
* Even if the public authority states that the company in question has deposited the amounts of the shortfall into its accounts, it has not been possible for this amount to be verified in a check by us.
 
* Also, the public authority has commissioned absolutely no study to identify the origin of this shortfall in the joint account.
 
* Consequently, it has not been possible to obtain reliable data about the income item contained in financial tables.