Kyrgyzstan discusses the transition to electronic auditing: the debate over the balance between digital and on-site audits

Discussions are continuing in the Jogorku Kenesh on a draft law on reforming the Chamber of Accounts, which provides for the introduction of electronic and preventive audits. The document was considered at first reading by the Budget Committee, but sparked a debate between the initiators and the leadership of the supervisory body.

The bill’s initiator, the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers and Minister of Justice Ayaz Baetov, who presented the document, insists on expanding the use of digital tools. According to him, where state information systems are already operational, audits should be conducted electronically, and on-site audits will be retained only in cases where digital data is unavailable.

“We are not talking about completely abandoning on-site inspections. Electronic auditing is an alternative and a tool for improving efficiency,” noted Baetov, adding that many government bodies are already gradually switching to electronic reporting.

However, the head of the Accounts Chamber, Almazbek Akmatov, expressed concerns about the excessive digitalisation of auditing. He emphasised that a number of sectors cannot be objectively assessed remotely.

“When it comes to construction projects or agriculture, auditors must visit the site. Reports can be falsified, but the actual results cannot. Even in developed countries, audits are not conducted entirely from an office,” stated Almazbek Akmatov. According to him, an excessive shift to an electronic format could reduce the effectiveness of oversight.

The Minister of Justice responded by emphasising that the initiative does not involve abandoning on-site inspections. In his view, electronic auditing should become an additional tool, not a replacement for traditional methods.

“Other countries also use a hybrid model. Electronic auditing strengthens oversight, not weakens it,” noted Baetov.

During the discussion, MPs also raised issues regarding the security of digital systems, data protection and the preservation of the Audit Chamber’s independence. Following the review, the committee recommended that the bill be further refined and removed it from the agenda to clarify certain provisions.