ICAG Level 2 · Paper 2.3ICAG Paper 2.3 Audit and Assurance past questions

• Weak areaGeneralSome candidates found it hard to explain what can undermine professional scepticism at engagement level.
• Weak areaGeneralSome candidates were weak at identifying which regulatory bodies shape Ghana's auditing profession.
• Weak areaQ1(c)(ii)A significant number of the candidates struggled to explain what can hinder professional scepticism at engagement level.
• MistakeQ1(c)(ii)Many answers lacked depth and missed key factors that can impair an auditor's objective and critical judgement during the engagement.
• Weak areaQ2(a)(i)Performance was weaker on identifying and explaining which regulators shape Ghana's auditing profession.
• MistakeQ2(a)(i)Some candidates named the relevant institutions, but many did not explain their roles or mixed up their regulatory duties, so a significant number could not get full marks.
• Weak areaQ3(a)(ii)Many candidates found it hard to explain the procedures needed before an audit begins.

Source: ICAG's July 2026 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralSeveral candidates were strong on compliance audits and performance audits.
• Done wellQ1(a)Most candidates successfully compared compliance audits with performance audits, showing firm conceptual understanding and scoring high marks.
• Weak areaQ1(b)(ii)Several candidates found it hard to explain why professional judgement matters in an audit, revealing a gap in understanding its role in audit decisions.

Source: ICAG's March 2026 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ2(b)Many candidates were competent at identifying the main parts of internal audit reports.
• Done wellQ3(a)Most candidates correctly explained how statistical sampling differs from non-statistical sampling.
• Done wellQ3(c)Most candidates gave good answers on audit procedures for an outsourced payroll.
• Weak areaQ3(b)(ii)Some candidates were unable to explain limited assurance.

Source: ICAG's November 2025 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralSome candidates showed a strong grasp of how an entity benefits from internal audit.
• Done wellGeneralSome candidates showed a strong grasp of the main audit assertions that apply to inventory balances.
• Weak areaGeneralSome candidates had a weak grasp of the particular audit procedures used to test inventory assertions.
• Weak areaGeneralSome candidates had limited understanding of the elements of a performance audit.
• Done wellQ2(c)Many candidates gave capable answers on how internal audit benefits an entity.
• Weak areaQ2(a)(i)Several candidates struggled to set out the IESBA Code safeguards to observe before accepting an additional service engagement for an audit client.
• Weak areaQ3(a)(i)Some candidates could not name and explain the key audit assertions that apply to inventory.
• Weak areaQ3(a)(ii)Some candidates were unable to describe procedures for testing the inventory assertions.
• Done wellQ5Well-prepared candidates produced strong answers and earned high marks.
• Weak areaQ5(c)Some candidates did not understand what a performance audit involves.
• MistakeQ5(c)Some candidates mixed up performance audit elements with basic auditing principles like integrity and objectivity.

Source: ICAG's July 2025 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralSome candidates clearly understood the internal audit function's role and could contrast it with that of external auditors.

Source: ICAG's March 2025 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ5Most candidates did well on Question 5 and earned higher marks.
• Weak areaQ4(a)(i)Some candidates found it hard to identify the factors that cast doubt on whether an entity is a going concern.
• Weak areaQ5(a)Some candidates struggled to explain tests of control and the method for testing each control.
• Done wellGeneralCandidates who had prepared well were not held back by these weaknesses.

Source: ICAG's November 2024 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ1Most candidates were strong on Question 1.
• Done wellQ3Most candidates were strong on Question 3.
• Done wellQ5Most candidates were strong on Question 5.
• Done wellQ3(a)Candidates who attempted Question 3(a) on computer-assisted audit techniques scored higher marks, helped by good teaching and good preparation.
• Weak areaQ5(a)Some candidates struggled to explain the external auditor's responsibilities concerning going concern.

Source: ICAG's July 2024 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ1Most candidates were strong on Question 1.
• Done wellQ3Most candidates were strong on Question 3.
• Done wellQ5Most candidates were strong on Question 5.
• Done wellQ1(a)Candidates who attempted Question 1(a) on how management can help auditors obtain evidence scored higher marks, helped by good teaching and good preparation.
• Done wellQ2(b)Candidates who attempted Question 2(b) on audit risks from a board member's referral of an audit firm scored higher marks, helped by good teaching and preparation.
• Done wellQ4Candidates who attempted Question 4 scored higher marks, helped by good teaching and good preparation.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Most candidates struggled to discuss the significant audit issues facing the IAASB and national standard-setting bodies.
• Weak areaQ2(a)(i)Most candidates struggled to give three circumstances in which the Bank of Ghana may appoint a bank's auditor, as section 82 of Act 930 gives one main reason.

Source: ICAG's March 2024 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ1Candidates were strong on Question 1, and those who attempted it scored higher marks, helped by good teaching and learning.
• Done wellQ2Candidates were strong on Question 2.
• Done wellQ4Candidates were strong on Question 4.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Most candidates attempted Question 4(b), on when ISA 710 requires the auditor's report to mention comparative figures, but could not answer it properly.
• Weak areaQ5Most candidates attempted Question 5 but could not answer it properly.

Source: ICAG's November 2023 Paper 2.3 file

• Weak areaQ4(b)(ii)Candidates mixed up Q4(b)(ii) because they could not show a good understanding of best value audit.
• Done wellQ1Performance on Q1 was satisfactory because candidates found the question popular and practical.
• Done wellQ2(a)Most candidates answered Q2(a) on the procedures for appointing a new bank auditor well because the question was practical.
• Weak areaQ4(b)(ii)Many candidates mixed up Q4(b)(ii) because they could not explain best value audit well.

Source: ICAG's July 2023 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ4(b)Q4(b) on the Internal Audit Agency scored highly because candidates found it popular.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Candidates were weak in Q2(b) on the IESBA conceptual framework approach to independence.
• Done wellQ1Performance on Q1 was satisfactory because candidates found the question popular and practical.
• Done wellQ3(b)Q3(b) was answered very well, as most candidates coped with the verification part of the question.
• Done wellQ4(b)Many candidates performed strongly in Q4(b) on the Internal Audit Agency, as candidates find it popular and practical.
• Done wellQ5Performance on Q5 was satisfactory, as most candidates found the question popular and practical.

Source: ICAG's March 2023 Paper 2.3 file

• Weak areaQ5Candidates were weak in Q5(d) and (e) on internal control deficiencies and significant deficiencies.
• Done wellQ1Performance on Q1 was satisfactory.
• Weak areaQ2(c)Performance on Q2(c) on procedures for accepting appointment in place of a retiring auditor was only average.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Q3(b) performance was very low, as most candidates could not state the limitations of ratio analysis, still less how they affect assertions.
• Done wellQ5Candidates performed satisfactorily on Q5(a), (b) and (c).
• Weak areaQ5Many candidates handled Q5(d) and (e) on internal control deficiencies poorly.

Source: ICAG's December 2022 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ1(a)Most candidates showed strength in Q1(a) on why the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) bars auditors from giving non-audit services to audit clients.
• Exam techniqueGeneralCandidates struggled to set out their ideas adequately on paper because their English was weak.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Most candidates were unable to answer Q2(b) on the committees under the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana Act, 2020 (Act 1058).
• Done wellQ1(a)Performance on Q1 was satisfactory, especially Q1(a) on reasons for prohibiting non-audit services to audit clients.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Most candidates did not answer Q2(b) on committees under the ICAG Act, 2020 well; the examiner described it as quite a new question.
• Done wellQ3(a)A few candidates earned good marks on Q3, particularly Q3(a) on factors affecting whether evidence is sufficient.
• Done wellQ4(a)(i)Most candidates performed strongly in Q4(a)(i) on going concern and the auditor's responsibilities, as the topic is popular with candidates.

Source: ICAG's August 2022 Paper 2.3 file

• Exam techniqueGeneralCandidates struggled to set out their ideas adequately on paper because their English was weak.
• Done wellQ2(b)Most candidates also answered Q2(b) on ICAG's functions and dual role well, even though it was quite a new question.
• Done wellQ2(b)(ii)A few candidates answered Q2(b)(ii) by discussing the benefits of ICAG's dual role, and this approach earned marks.

Source: ICAG's April 2022 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ1(c)Performance on Q1 was satisfactory, especially Q1(c) on the purposes of audit documentation.
• MistakeQ1(b)Few candidates failed to pick out, from the case details, the business risks the audit firm faced in Q1(b).
• MistakeQ3(c)Most candidates cited a familiarity threat in Q3(c) without considering that the partner's wife was only a personal assistant with little influence, so performance was quite unsatisfactory.
• Weak areaQ5(b)(ii)Answers to Q5(b)(ii) were weak, as many candidates could not state precisely what a management letter should contain.
• MistakeQ5(b)(ii)Candidates confused what a management letter should contain with the contents of a general report.

Source: ICAG's November 2021 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralMost candidates who tried Q1, Q2 and Q4 earned high marks on them, typically between 12 and 18.
• Done wellQ1(b)(i)Candidates did well stating sources of knowledge about the client's industry and organisation, earning all the marks available for this part.
• Done wellQ2(c)(i)Candidates answered very well on how limited liability company auditors are appointed and paid.
• Done wellQ2(c)(ii)Candidates answered very well on the reasons why an auditor might step down from an appointment.
• Done wellQ5(a)All candidates attempted the question on audit preconditions and when to refuse an engagement, and most marks were scored here.

Source: ICAG's May 2021 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralCandidates who tried Q1, Q4 and Q5 earned higher marks on those questions.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Procedures to understand an entity in a first-time audit was one of the least attempted questions, and performance was not encouraging.
• Done wellQ4(b)Most candidates scored their highest mark on the part internal audit plays in risk management and corporate governance.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Audit preconditions when agreeing engagement terms were not well answered, and performance was average.

Source: ICAG's November 2020 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ1(a)Candidates performed well on the auditor's opinion under ISA 700/701, including what a true and fair view means.
• Done wellQ3Candidates also performed well on audit evidence under ISA 500.
• Done wellQ2Candidates did well on Question 2.
• Weak areaQ5Question 5 was poorly answered by candidates.

Source: ICAG's May 2020 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellQ2(a)Candidates performed well on external confirmations under ISA 505.
• Done wellQ3Candidates did well on Question 3.
• Done wellQ4Candidates did well on Question 4.

Source: ICAG's November 2019 Paper 2.3 file

• Weak areaGeneralSome candidates showed only an average level of preparedness for the paper.
• Weak areaQ3Question 3, on uncorrected misstatements and going concern, was not well answered.
• Weak areaQ5Candidates answered Question 5, on audit opinions and ISA 260, poorly.
• Weak areaQ3(a)Few candidates answered the procedures on the uncorrected inventory misstatement well.
• Done wellQ3(c)Candidates identified going concern audit procedures, though the part was only averagely answered.
• Done wellQ5(a)Most candidates answered well on when disagreement leads to a qualified or adverse opinion, scoring four of five marks.
• Weak areaQ5(b)(i)Most candidates did not properly explain the auditor's main communication objectives under ISA 260, Communication with Those Charged with Governance; most who attempted it scored low marks.
• MistakeQ5(b)Most candidates mixed up their answers to Q5(b)(i) on ISA 260 objectives and Q5(b)(ii) on significant matters.

Source: ICAG's May 2019 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralSome candidates were well prepared for the paper.
• Exam techniqueQ1Candidates copied out each separate requirement of Q1 but did not answer any of them.
• Done wellQ2Candidates answered Q2 well, and overall performance on it was encouraging.
• MistakeQ2(b)Candidates identified corporate governance weaknesses but did not explain their effects.
• MistakeQ2(b)Most students merely restated the weaknesses as given in the case without explanation.
• MistakeQ4(a)Most students (60%) mixed up the auditor's problems with the client's, describing the drawbacks to All Souls Ltd of switching from manual to computerised accounting.
• Done wellQ4(b)Candidates answered Q4(b), on audit procedures to verify the value of land and buildings, well.
• MistakeQ4(b)A few (10%) students wrongly described procedures for verifying the sale of land and buildings instead of their value.

Source: ICAG's November 2018 Paper 2.3 file

• Weak areaQ5Candidates performed poorly on Question 5, which tested ISA 701 on communicating key audit matters in the auditor's report.
• Weak areaQ1Question 1, on reasonable assurance and the responsibilities of directors and auditors, was only averagely answered.
• Done wellQ1Most candidates understood Question 1, unlike Questions 3 to 5, although answers to it were only average overall.
• Done wellQ2Most candidates understood and engaged well with Question 2.

Source: ICAG's May 2018 Paper 2.3 file

• Weak areaQ3A chunk of candidates handled Question 3 poorly.
• Weak areaQ4A chunk of candidates handled Question 4 poorly.
• Weak areaQ5A chunk of candidates handled Question 5 poorly.
• Done wellQ1Candidates scored high marks on Question 1.
• Done wellQ2Candidates scored high marks on Question 2.
• AdviceGeneralDo not forget the principles learnt at this level when you reach level three auditing.
• AdviceGeneralContinue to play your part well as a student to build on these strengths.
• MistakeGeneralStudents appeared to have overlooked these areas when preparing for the examination.
• AdviceGeneralSpread your reading to accounting issues, as this will help you a lot.

Source: ICAG's November 2017 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralSome candidates showed better than average preparation for the paper.
• Done wellQ1(a)Candidates were strong on explaining the role and purpose of external audit in large companies.
• Exam techniqueGeneralMost candidates did not number the pages of their answer booklets, despite spaces provided for this.
• Exam techniqueGeneralSome candidates persistently ignored the designated spaces for answers in the answer booklets.
• Weak areaQ3Q3 on audit planning, ISA 320 materiality and going concern procedures was only averagely answered.

Source: ICAG's May 2017 Paper 2.3 file

• Done wellGeneralCandidates showed good preparation in most topics tested in Questions 1, 2 and 3.
• Weak areaQ1(b)Some candidates struggled with Q1(b) on the auditor's duties under the Ghana Companies Act 1963 (Act 179).
• Done wellQ1Candidates answered Question 1 very well.
• Done wellQ2Candidates answered Question 2 very well.
• Done wellQ3Candidates answered Question 3 very well.
• Weak areaQ4Candidates answered Question 4 poorly.
• Weak areaQ5Candidates gave only average answers to Question 5.

Source: ICAG's November 2016 Paper 2.3 file

• Weak areaQ5Question 5, on value for money audit and PPE assertions, was answered only to an average standard.

Source: ICAG's May 2016 Paper 2.3 file

• Weak areaGeneralMost candidates struggled greatly when answering certain questions.
• Weak areaGeneralMost candidates lacked a basic foundation in the subject, which the examiners gave as the cause of the weak performance.
• MistakeQ5Candidates either did not understand Question 5 or were ill-prepared for it.

Source: ICAG's November 2015 Paper 2.3 file