According to the auditors, mismanagement of the Contingency Fund to cover predictable expenses creates fiscal risk potentially forcing the government to take on loans and leaving it without resources to finance actual emergencies when they occur. - Advertisement -It added that expenditures from the Contingency Fund are permissible only under unforeseen circumstances and require parliamentary consideration, which it said, was not done in the use of the D329,505,582. The auditors cited Section 153(2) of the Constitution which states that, “where any advance is made from the Contingency Fund, a supplementary estimate shall be presented, and a Supplementary Appropriation Bill shall be introduced for the purpose of replacing the amount so advanced with ninety days of the advance being made”. It also cited the 2016 Financial Regulations which stipulates that ”where the circumstances are such that expenditures cannot be postponed pending consideration by the National Assembly, application may be made to the Minister for an advance from the Civil Contingency Fund to cover recurrent expenditure.” - Advertisement -The auditors demanded a “plausible explanation” as to why funds are being vired from the Contingency Fund.