Abstract
Ability to report back the conclusion of an assignment of the
progress made so far to the person(s) who delegated the authority
to the performer of an assignment, duty or function, has for
decades eluded this nation both in the private and public
responsibilities to be performed and performed and reported back
has been carried out as accomplished. The lack of accountability
leads to many vices in our social and economic system. The
objectives of this study therefore are: (a) To ascertain the
determine the role of independent audit towards accountability in
an organization (b) To determine if independent audit can control
fraud and embezzlement. The primary data sources (the
questionnaire) collected response from thirty two (32)
respondents out of forty (40) that was sampled. Data collected
through primary sources were analyzed on tables using
percentages, three hypotheses were stated in null form and ere
tested using the X2 statistics, simple percentages and the test
revealed that audit enhances accountability in an organization
and also help in controlling fraud, embezzlement and defalcation
in an organization.

1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Accountability in both public and private section has being an issue that is
worth discussing due to its paramount and colossal impact to the overall
performance of an organization.
It (Accountability) has to do with reporting back action, task carried out by an
individual to the authority who apportioned such function.
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Accountability is the process or act of reporting back to a higher authority,
body or individual the actions taken by a steward. It enables the person or
persons reported to determine if the steward has acted or performed the assigned
duties properly and satisfactory. It plays a major role in the success or failure of
any business, particularly when the business is not managed by its owner.
Initially most business set-ups were managed by their owners. The owners‟
manager was the sole financial contribution to the enterprise. But with the
development in the scale and scope of business, a huge capital beyond that
affordable by the sole individual or a family was needed. Consequently
contributors (hereafter called shareholders) were required to raise the funds for
the business. The emergence of these shareholders led to the divorce of the
owner managers from the management of the business as all of them cannot be
directors at the same time. This the management of business was entrusted to
the hands of people who have no financial claims to the business and the
shareholders were sceptical about this particularly as the law does not permit
them individually to go through the books of the company in their desire to keep
abreast of the performance of the directors.
2
This skepticism aroused the need for surveillance over the activities of the
non-owner managing directors. This bid to fulfil the later led to the engagement
of third-party (an Auditor) to perform an audit of the company‟s accounts.
Audit has since them received a lot of definitions and/or then received a lot
of definitions and/or interpretations both from accounting bodies and auditors
and their non-the-like. Justifiable is to say that audit has suffered a lot of
misinterpretations. Most of the misgiving interpretations see it as being armed at
fraud and error detection. But audit essentially involves much more than that.
One of the most involved and of course the most acceptable definitions so far is
that issued by the consultative council of accountability bodies (CCAB) which
sees audit as “the independent examination and expression of opinion on the
financial statement of an enterprise by an appointed auditor in pursuance of
statutory obligation (Howard 1982:1).
Deductively, an audit is the objective scrutiny of someone‟s work or
presentation by a third party (an auditor) who is different from the users and the
preparing of the presentation. The general essence of audit is to ascertain
compliance of the firm‟s records and operational policies with usefulness of
acceptability of and the dependability on the firm‟s financial statements.
Accountability as explained above has suffered some misconceptions,
surprisingly in the hands of those who should have understood it better. Most of
the lay men conceptual understanding of accountability relates it to
„communicating about monetary matters (Odon, 1999:7) but accountability goes
beyond that. According to the Webster encyclopaedia dictionary of English
language (1995:110), accountability is defined as “the state of being
accountable, answerable, liable or responsible” the same dictionary goes further
to define accountable as “liable to pay or make good in case of loss; responsible
to a trust, liable to be called to account, put in another way an much more
3
related to the context in the articles Aba times of fourth September 1999
captioned “accountability in the third republic” it says
Accountability connotes answerability and stewardship, by
answerability is meant answering for one‟s actions and
decisions (odon1999:7)
Stewardship according to the article means service; it means
that every leader should be responsible to the people who
reposed trust in him.
For accountability to be accorded its rightful place in an organization the writer
believes that there is a high need for proper internal control measure and in
addition, efforts should be made to ensure that company accounts are subjected
to external and independent audits after each financial period.
The bible also records in chapter 25 verse 14-30 of saint Matthew gospel,
the story of a rich man who went on a far journey entrusting the affairs to his
servants and who when he returned, required the servants to answer
individually, for their stewardship to the business while he was away. It in the
same manner that it is required of the chief executives and directors of a
company who are quite different from the real owners of the business to answer
for their stewardship of the funds and property entrusted to them by the
shareholders. It is desire for accountability that gave rise to what we know today
as audit- a mechanism through which the shareholders are made abreast of the
true and fair picture of the activities of the directors and chief executive of the
company
4
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SHEFFIELD RISK
MANAGEMENT LIMITED, OWERRI
Sheffield risk management limited is located within the industrial layout
area of Owerri, it is established as a private limited liability company, it is an
incorporated company.
The company is an insurance brokerage firm that serves as an intermediary
between the insurer and the insured; they also serve as underwriter of insurance
policies. The insurance policies in which Sheffield risks management limited
act as intermediary between the insurer (insurance company) and the insured
(client) or consultant to each or both include Life insurance, Car insurance,
Burglary insurance, Motor vehicle insurance etc.
OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE
According to the memorandum of understanding signed by the stake
holders of Sheffield Risk Management, the company has its ownership structure
as shown below out of the start-up capital of twenty two million naira
(₦22,000,000).
Shareholders % Of shareholding Nominal value (₦)
Mr. David Okolie
Barr Obumneme
Okonkwo
Mrs. Mary Nwosu
Barr O. Oluchukwu
Mr Okey Elendu
50
22
18
6
4
11,000,000
4,840,000
3,960,000
1,320,000
880,000
5
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Going by the memorandum and article of association of the company, it has
provision for six member board which comprises of the chairman, general
manager, company‟s secretary, marketing manager, company‟s accountant,
company‟s P.R.O.
This composition has been maintained throughout the company‟s existence