ICAG Level 2 · Paper 2.5ICAG Paper 2.5 Public Sector Accounting and Finance past questions

• Done wellGeneralCandidates showed reasonable knowledge in some parts of the syllabus.
• MistakeQ1(c)Some candidates wrongly said an accounting policy may change because of economic crises, natural disasters or other external events, instead of the circumstances IPSAS permits.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Many candidates left the construction contract question unattempted.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Candidates who attempted the construction contract question were unsure about the calculations and accounting treatment required.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Candidates widely misunderstood the IPSAS 35 whole-of-government consolidation question, which was the paper's worst answered question.
• MistakeQ2(b)Several candidates confused consolidation procedures with the qualitative characteristics that financial reports should have.
• Done wellQ4(a)Answers on why financial statement analysis helps and which analytical techniques to use were generally good.
• Done wellQ5The question on asset controls and Ministry of Finance functions was generally well answered.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Many candidates could not adequately explain what the law requires the Minister for Finance to do, as the question asked.
• Done wellGeneralA few candidates showed sound understanding, especially of the PFM framework and parts of financial statement analysis.
• Weak areaGeneralThe majority of candidates showed significant weaknesses in several core syllabus areas.
• AdviceGeneralPractise applying IPSAS to scenarios, especially consolidation and construction contracts.
• AdviceGeneralBe ready to read and interpret financial information, using analytical techniques such as ratios and performance evaluation.

Source: ICAG's July 2026 Paper 2.5 file

• Weak areaQ2(a)Many candidates had some familiarity with leases but could not adequately answer what the question required.
• MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates left initial direct payments made before the lease began out of the right-of-use asset's cost.
• MistakeQ2(a)Given both present value and fair value, some candidates wrongly used the fair value, which made their calculations inaccurate.
• Done wellQ3(a)(i)Many candidates clearly explained why a national budget is beneficial and scored most of the available marks.
• MistakeQ4(a)Many candidates misread the requirement and wrote about qualitative characteristics instead of the general considerations for financial statement discussion and analysis under RPG 2.
• MistakeQ4(b)Some candidates missed that the budget covered six months, produced a full-year budget and wrongly compared it with six-month actuals, which significantly cut their scores.
• Done wellQ4(b)(ii)Some candidates analysed and discussed the hospital's financial performance soundly.
• Weak areaQ4(b)(ii)Other candidates could not discuss and analyse the hospital's financial performance effectively.
• AdviceQ4(b)(ii)In your analysis, state the figure or result, whether performance improved or worsened, the likely causes and the corrective action.
• Weak areaQ5(a)(i)Many candidates could not identify what General Purpose Financial Reports are made up of or explain their information relevance, despite the part being relatively easy.
• Done wellQ5(b)Candidates answered satisfactorily and showed they understood sustainability well in a public sector accounting setting.
• MistakeQ5(c)Many candidates did not answer the requirement set. Rather than explaining why the Nolan Principles matter and their limitations, they largely listed and explained the seven principles.

Source: ICAG's March 2026 Paper 2.5 file

• MistakeQ1(b)Many candidates listed general benefits of cash flow statements for users rather than advantages specific to the direct method.
• AdviceQ1(b)Focus each answer on exactly what the question asks, not on guesses or general knowledge.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Many candidates could not adapt their answers to the applied situation of prioritising funds for IPSAS implementation.
• Done wellQ2(b)Most candidates valued the inventory under IPSAS 12 fairly well.
• MistakeQ2(b)Some candidates failed to tell apart the different measurement situations under IPSAS 12, which cost them the top marks.
• Weak areaQ2(c)A significant number of those sitting could not differentiate defined contribution plans from defined benefit plans under IPSAS 39, and the topic seemed unfamiliar to many.
• AdviceQ2(c)Go further than basic definitions and develop a deeper grasp of IPSAS concepts.
• MistakeQ3(a)(ii)Many candidates explained the PEFA pillars but did not give an indicator for each, losing up to half the available marks.
• AdviceQ3(c)Answer the question directly to earn full marks.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Candidates had significant difficulty with three ratios: the cash ratio, debt to total assets, and IGF to CAPEX.
• Weak areaQ4(b)The analytical reports were of weak quality.
• MistakeQ4(b)Many candidates did not use the required headings of financial performance, long-term solvency and short-term liquidity, merging everything into one narrative that lacked clarity and depth.
• Weak areaQ5(a)Answers on the objects of EOCO and OSP and how they could collaborate were disappointing, even though the requirement was straightforward.
• Weak areaQ5(b)(ii)Many candidates seemed not to know the rights of internal auditors.
• Done wellQ5(c)Most candidates gave insightful answers on why stakeholder engagement matters in government decision-making.
• Weak areaGeneralOverall results were encouraging, but there is still much room to improve, especially in preparation, covering the syllabus and exam technique.
• Done wellQ2(a)Despite weak application, performance on the question about prioritising funds for IPSAS implementation was encouraging overall.

Source: ICAG's November 2025 Paper 2.5 file

• AdviceQ1Get to know the Chart of Accounts and what IPSAS 1 (Presentation of Financial Statements) requires. The Institute's Study Manual can help.
• Weak areaQ2(a)(i)Most candidates found it hard to explain the practical difficulties in costing internally developed software so that it can be capitalised under IPSAS 31.
• Weak areaQ2(a)(ii)Most candidates could not set out the conditions internally developed software must meet to qualify for recognition.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Most candidates could not calculate what the V8s swapped between the Ministries should be recorded at, their deemed cost.
• Done wellQ3(a)Most candidates clearly understood the Treasury Single Account concept and set out well-structured answers.
• Weak areaQ3(a)(iii)Many candidates had difficulty with the TSA transitional arrangements under the PFM Regulations 2019 (L.I. 2378).
• Done wellQ3(b)Most candidates gave convincing answers on what the Budget Office and Budget Committees do.
• Exam techniqueQ3(b)A few candidates did not present their answers in the proper format, and this weakened the overall standard of their write-up.
• Weak areaQ5(a)(i)A common weakness was failing to explain what 'resource' means in the asset definition.
• AdviceQ5(a)Build a firmer grasp of the fundamental concepts underlying public sector accounting.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Many candidates explained poorly how Lawton's virtue ethics links to Nolan's principles of public life.

Source: ICAG's July 2025 Paper 2.5 file

• Weak areaQ2(a)Most candidates had difficulty explaining what a qualifying asset is.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Many candidates found it hard to work out the qualifying asset's capitalised cost.
• Done wellQ2(d)Most candidates explained the other approach to treating borrowing costs under IPSAS 5 well.
• Weak areaQ2Weak answers may have stemmed from inadequate preparation on the relevant IPSASs, or from candidates being confused by how the question combined several areas.
• Done wellQ3(a)Most candidates who attempted the fiscal policy part showed clear understanding and structured their answers well.
• MistakeQ3(a)Many candidates could not identify the specific fiscal policy principles that applied to each government proposal in the scenario.
• Done wellQ5(b)Most candidates performed well when explaining what the Minister for Finance and the Bank of Ghana do to support government economic policy.
• Weak areaQ5(a)The IPSASB part was not well answered. How IPSASB raises awareness of authoritative and non-authoritative materials seemed unfamiliar to many candidates.

Source: ICAG's March 2025 Paper 2.5 file

• Weak areaGeneralNot having the question banks and study manuals the Institute recommends may also have added to the poor performance.
• MistakeQ3(a)(ii)Asked how to improve each stage of the PFM cycle, some candidates instead recommended ways to meet the objectives of PFM.
• MistakeQ3(b)(ii)Asked for two strategies for each assessed area, candidates gave only two general recommendations and ignored the individual assessed areas.
• MistakeQ1Some candidates did not realise petty cash belongs within cash and bank balances, so they classed it under goods and services.
• MistakeQ1Legacy asset valuation was poorly handled. Most candidates included the revalued figures in fixed assets but ignored the matching revaluation surplus.
• MistakeQ1After drawing up the non-current asset schedule, most candidates also listed each asset and its depreciation in the Statement of Financial Position itself, contrary to IPSAS 1.
• Weak areaQ1(c)The majority of candidates did not answer part (c), and those who did scored very poorly.
• Weak areaQ1(c)About 90% of candidates were unable to explain events after the reporting date as set out in IPSAS 14.
• MistakeQ1(c)Most candidates who attempted part (c) could not identify the relevant period or the two event types under IPSAS 14.
• MistakeQ1(c)Even those who identified the two event types explained them poorly.
• MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates were confused between the FACU valuation and the professional valuation of the legacy land and building under IPSAS 17 and IPSAS 33.
• Done wellQ2(a)A small number of candidates did well on the legacy land and building valuation.
• Weak areaQ3(a)(i)A few candidates had no idea how to answer part (a)(i) on PFM system objectives.
• Done wellQ3(b)(i)Most candidates gave a fair explanation of the PEFA assessment results.
• MistakeQ3(b)(i)A few candidates misunderstood the PEFA method and recomputed the indicators using weakest link and averaging, instead of simply explaining the scores given.
• Done wellQ3(b)(ii)Part (b)(ii) on strategies to improve the local government's scores drew some favourable responses.
• Weak areaQ5Most candidates did not understand parts (a) and (c) of the question.
• MistakeQ5(a)(i)Candidates could not set out clearly the Principal Spending Officer's responsibilities in the payment process under the PFM Regulations.
• Done wellQ5(a)(ii)A good number of candidates distinguished well between misapplied and misappropriated funds.
• MistakeQ5(a)(ii)Some candidates did not give the examples the question required, which reduced their marks.
• Weak areaQ5(c)The part on the functions of the State Interests and Governance Authority was poorly answered, with less than 1% of candidates getting it right.
• MistakeQ5(c)Most candidates wrote at length about what public sector institutions do in general, rather than setting out SIGA's own functions.

Source: ICAG's November 2024 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralSome candidates performed exceptionally well even though overall performance was weak.
• MistakeGeneralSome candidates did not write their correct index numbers on their scripts, which made processing results difficult.
• MistakeGeneralSome candidates misnumbered their questions or left them unnumbered, which made marking difficult.
• MistakeQ1(a)Some candidates relied on social examples when explaining public financial management issues.
• AdviceQ1(a)Every example and illustration you use should come from the public sector, never from personal or social matters.
• MistakeQ1(b)(i)Many candidates treated the Internal Audit Agency as if it were an Internal Audit Unit, and so listed a unit's functions instead.
• AdviceQ1(b)(i)Remember that the Internal Audit Agency oversees internal audit across the public sector, making sure covered entities carry out internal audit effectively.
• MistakeQ1(b)(ii)Some candidates even wrongly stated that public sector financial reporting is the Audit Service's job.
• AdviceQ1(b)Make sure you know what the Internal Audit Agency and the Audit Service each do within public financial management.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Some candidates found the treatment of the investment impairment and the debt forgiveness challenging.
• MistakeQ2(a)Some candidates got the non-current asset schedule wrong.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Some candidates left the financial statements question unanswered, either because they ran out of time or lacked the knowledge.
• Done wellQ2(b)The part on why classifying expenses by function is advantageous was unpopular, but a few candidates did exceedingly well.
• Done wellQ3The question was very popular, and most candidates answered it satisfactorily.
• MistakeQ3(b)Some candidates could not say whether each budget variance or outturn was favourable or adverse.
• AdviceQ3(b)A revenue variance is favourable when actual revenue exceeds budget, and for expenses the reverse applies.
• AdviceQ3(b)(ii)Always present your answer in the format the question requires, where one is specified.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Part (a) on procurement law drew very poor answers because it required recall.
• Weak areaQ4(a)(ii)Most candidates could not give the approving authorities for the procurement thresholds.
• MistakeQ4(a)(ii)Many candidates misread the question as being about procurement method thresholds and wrote monetary thresholds instead of the approving authorities.
• Done wellQ4(b)Most candidates gave a fair answer on whether the water PPP project was feasible.
• MistakeQ4(b)Some candidates confused PPP's guiding principles with its governing principles, losing substantial marks.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Many candidates struggled with the practical nature of the items, so answers were generally poor.
• Done wellQ5(a)Answers to part (a) on budget authorisation and budget approval were good.
• MistakeQ5(a)Some candidates swapped the explanations of budget authorisation and approval. Authorisation takes place within the executive, while approval is Parliament's responsibility.
• MistakeQ5(b)Some candidates explained the COSO elements without stressing their implications for the entity's revenue control policy.
• MistakeQ5(c)Many candidates failed to spot the main issues raised by the Director of Finance's assertion, so their answers were speculative and poorly grounded.
• Exam techniqueQ5(c)In evaluation questions, first identify the key issues, then deal with each one using the relevant theory or principle.
• AdviceQ5(c)Use the public sector Conceptual Framework to tackle both issues: whether to report when transactions are few, and which bodies count as reporting entities.
• AdviceGeneralAlways write your index number and question numbers correctly.
• Done wellQ1Overall, candidates gave fair answers to Question 1.
• Weak areaQ5(c)Overall, answers to the part on the reporting entity assertion were only average.

Source: ICAG's July 2024 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralSome candidates did very well, giving excellent and interesting answers.
• Done wellQ1(b)The measurement question carried a twist that rewarded candidates who had prepared thoroughly.
• Exam techniqueQ3(a)On PEFA's benefits and information sources, answers needed to be tailored to the needs of the specific country.

Source: ICAG's March 2024 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellQ1(a)(i)Most candidates handled this part well, successfully converting the accrual-basis statement of financial performance to a cash basis.
• MistakeQ1(a)(i)Some candidates failed to deal with the donated motor vehicle included in donations when redrafting on a cash basis.
• Done wellQ1(a)(ii)Answers on why management would prepare cash-basis statements were very impressive, showing candidates understood the cash basis of accounting.
• Done wellQ2(a)Performance on preparing the cash flow statement was above average.
• Done wellQ2(b)Most candidates answered very well on why cash flow information is beneficial.
• MistakeQ3(a)Unexpectedly, some candidates failed to give valid answers on the PEFA outcomes and pillars.
• Exam techniqueQ4(a)Answers on records a procurement entity must keep were only fair, and some candidates did not attempt the question at all.
• MistakeQ4(a)Other candidates misread the requirement and wrote about the contents of an invitation document instead of procurement records.
• MistakeQ4(b)Answers were disappointing. Many candidates explained the consultant selection methods but not the conditions for using each, so lost the marks.
• MistakeQ4(c)(i)Some candidates recommended PPP models that need the grantor to supply the service concession asset itself, which would not work in the scenario.
• Done wellQ5(a)Performance on the budget reliability question was good.
• MistakeQ5(a)(i)Some candidates could not give a practical illustration of budget reliability.
• MistakeQ5(a)(ii)Some candidates could not link budget reliability to coordination and control, strategic resource allocation and public accountability.
• Done wellQ5(b)Most candidates explained the budget terms well.
• Weak areaQ5(b)(iii)Some candidates struggled to explain the revised budget.
• Done wellQ5(c)(i)Part (c) drew very impressive answers, with most candidates giving a convincing account of what public sector financial reporting aims to achieve.
• MistakeQ5(c)(ii)Some candidates named Parliament as a user instead of the local government's General Assembly.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Candidates found the cash flow statement question unpopular because earlier papers had usually asked for other financial statements.

Source: ICAG's November 2023 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralCandidates' answers across the paper were satisfactory.
• MistakeQ1(a)Many candidates misread the requirement and set out differences between cash and accrual accounting instead of the conditions needed for a smooth transition, so some performed poorly.
• Weak areaQ3(a)A few candidates could not explain Pillar 4 (policy-based fiscal strategy and budgeting) or Pillar 5 (predictability and control in budget execution).
• MistakeQ3(b)(i)A few candidates struggled with the figures and the units of measurement in their ratio answers.
• MistakeQ3(b)(i)Some candidates expressed debt per capita as a percentage instead of an amount in cedis.
• MistakeQ3(b)(ii)Others did not bring out the performance trend and simply restated the ratios they had already calculated.
• AdviceQ3(b)(ii)Do not just restate figures. Analyse what the data shows rather than giving a shallow description.
• Weak areaQ4(a)(i)Many candidates struggled to explain what unserviceable and surplus mean in the context of disposing of public stores.
• Done wellQ4(a)(ii)Many candidates answered the disposal methods under the Public Procurement Amendment Act, 2016 (Act 914) well.
• MistakeQ5(a)Candidates made a fair attempt at the cash flow forecast, but most did not show the total for the whole quarter.
• MistakeQ5(a)Some candidates confused the cash flow forecast with an IPSAS 2 cash flow statement, showing weak understanding of cash budgeting.
• MistakeQ5(b)Candidates described the aims or benefits of GIFMIS instead of the public financial management challenges that existed before it was introduced.
• MistakeQ5(c)Answers on DACF and PHF income were disappointing. Most candidates gave the revenue sources of District Assemblies instead of those of the DACF.

Source: ICAG's July 2023 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellQ4(b)Candidates found the question on Public Private Partnership (PPP) principles very popular.
• MistakeQ1(a)(i)Asked to explain why cash-basis figures can be obtained from accrual accounting, a lot of candidates instead wrote about why accrual basis is better than cash basis.
• MistakeQ1(b)Most candidates left out the question on what the Audit Service and Internal Audit Agency do by statute.
• Weak areaQ5(c)Candidates' knowledge of what a Fiscal Strategy Document contains was very poor, and most could not give any of its contents.

Source: ICAG's March 2023 Paper 2.5 file

• MistakeQ3(b)A few candidates were unsure what the common size figures should be based on and wrongly used net assets rather than total assets.
• Done wellQ4(b)Candidates answered the public-public partnership question well.
• MistakeQ1(a)Many candidates misread the question on what to include in a draft accounting policy, or twisted it to suit answers they had prepared, and so earned very low marks.
• MistakeQ1(a)Some candidates discussed how accrual and cash accounting policies differ, or why accrual accounting is stronger, instead of the areas a policy should cover.
• MistakeQ1(a)Other candidates presented accounting policies in the form of a financial statement note instead of discussing the areas the policy should cover.
• Weak areaQ1(a)Candidates appeared not to know what an accounting policy contains, so their answers went completely off the point.
• Weak areaQ2Some candidates had difficulty with the extra information on providing for unrecoverable school fees and on inventory valuation.
• Weak areaQ3(a)The question on the five COSO internal control components was unpopular, and many candidates could not attempt it, even though the topic is linked to PEFA assessment tools.
• MistakeQ3(b)Other candidates failed to restate the financial position statement in common size form because they wrongly divided by net assets, not total assets.
• MistakeQ4(b)Some candidates mixed up public-public partnership and public-private partnership and went off the point. Performance on this part was average.
• AdviceQ5(a)When asked about Parliament's role in improving public financial management, ground your answer in the relevant legislation.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Most candidates were unable to explain commitment, mid-year review and expenditure in advance of appropriation, and so performed badly.
• Done wellQ5(c)Candidates performed well on the constraints on information in GPFRs, as the question was simple and direct.
• Exam techniqueGeneralThe very low performance was attributed partly to weak time management in the examination.

Source: ICAG's December 2022 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralThe quality of candidates' answers had improved significantly compared with earlier sittings.
• Done wellGeneralCandidates' presentation of answers had improved sharply, possibly helped by the Institute's interventions and outreach programmes.
• Done wellGeneralThe Institute's virtual Meet the Examiners series, which candidates attended in large numbers, may have helped the improved results.
• MistakeQ3(b)Some candidates did not grasp how the supplementary budget affected the budget performance report.
• Done wellQ5(b)Candidates showed a solid conceptual grasp of who uses public sector financial information and why.
• Done wellQ1(b)Candidates showed deep understanding of the issues around adopting and implementing IPSAS in developing countries.
• Weak areaQ4(c)Many candidates found the Public Private Partnership scenario question very challenging, even though it was simple.
• Weak areaQ5(a)Many candidates found the question on fiscal policy proposals under the Public Financial Management Act 2016 very challenging, even though it was simple.
• AdviceGeneralGive particular attention to PEFA and fiscal policies in your studies.

Source: ICAG's August 2022 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralMost candidates showed a thorough grasp of full accrual accounting as used in the public sector.
• MistakeQ3(b)(ii)Some candidates did not provide any analysis of the budget outturns.
• Done wellQ4(c)A small number of candidates handled the IPSAS 32 service concession question well.
• Exam techniqueQ1(a)Some candidates listed reasons for not adopting full accrual accounting without discussing them, which cost them marks.
• Exam techniqueQ1(b)(ii)Some candidates went off track and calculated ratios that the question never asked for.
• MistakeQ2(c)Many candidates did not attempt the question on principles of accounting policy formulation.
• Weak areaQ2(c)Most candidates were unable to identify the IPSAS 3 guiding principles of accounting policy formulation.
• MistakeQ2(d)Many candidates skipped the question on conditions requiring an accounting policy change.
• Weak areaQ3(a)(i)Many candidates, surprisingly, could not explain even two challenges facing Ghana's public financial management systems.
• Weak areaQ3(a)(ii)Some candidates knew nothing of what an open, orderly PFM system is expected to achieve.
• MistakeQ3(b)(i)Some candidates did not compare actual performance with the revised budget.
• MistakeQ4(a)Most candidates listed tenderer qualifications instead of explaining why the company kept failing to win contracts.
• AdviceQ5(a)(i)Know the budgeting provisions of the Constitution, which every citizen should be familiar with.
• Weak areaQ5(a)(ii)Some candidates did not understand what a Citizens Budget is.
• Weak areaQ5(a)(iii)Many candidates could not set out what a budget guideline contains.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Most candidates answered poorly on selecting an accounting policy when no IPSAS covers a transaction.

Source: ICAG's April 2022 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellQ3(b)(ii)Most candidates wrote a good report analysing the assembly's financial performance.
• Weak areaQ1(a)Candidates struggled with Q1(a) on the policy implications of measurement bases under accrual accounting.
• Done wellQ1(b)Performance on Q1(b), on the reporting entity and who uses general purpose financial reports, was impressive.
• MistakeQ3(a)(ii)Few candidates could not carry out the PEFA indicator scoring because they lacked knowledge of, or misunderstood, the scoring principles.

Source: ICAG's November 2021 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellQ1Performance on Q1 was fairly good overall.
• Weak areaQ1(a)Some candidates performed only averagely on Q1(a) and others very poorly, which surprised the examiner.
• MistakeQ2Most candidates could not handle the prior year adjustment given in the additional information.
• Weak areaQ2(c)Unexpectedly, most candidates could not satisfactorily explain the conditions for recognising revenue on sales of goods under IPSAS 9, probably from not knowing the standard.
• Done wellQ3(a)The other parts of Q3(a), on uses of PEFA reports and sources of PEFA assessment information, were well answered.
• Done wellQ5(a)Most candidates answered the first-quarter revenue budget performance question satisfactorily.
• MistakeQ5(a)(i)A few candidates could not work out the first-quarter budget, or calculate the variance percentages and assign their PEFA scores.
• Done wellQ5(b)Most candidates handled the question on internal audit functions under the PFM Act 2016 (Act 921) satisfactorily.

Source: ICAG's May 2021 Paper 2.5 file

• Weak areaGeneralCandidates found it somewhat difficult to classify the revenue sources of local government.
• AdviceGeneralClassify local government revenues in the way the ICAG Study Manual and Question Bank for Paper 2.5 does.
• Done wellGeneralCandidates did well in questions on basis of accounting, public private partnership, procurement and the PEFA framework.
• MistakeQ4(a)(ii)Asked for the risks of public procurement in Ghana's public sector, many candidates gave the risks of public-private partnership instead.
• Done wellQ1(b)Candidates attempted well the question on how general purpose financial reports differ from special purpose ones under the IPSASB Conceptual Framework.
• MistakeQ1(c)Most candidates failed to link each measurement basis to the objective of measurement of assets.
• Done wellQ2(b)Most candidates prepared the District Assembly's statement of cash flow well.
• MistakeQ2(c)Most candidates misread the question on disclosures in consolidated financial statements as asking about notes to accounts generally, and performance on it was very poor.
• MistakeQ4(a)(ii)Most candidates misread the question as asking about the risks of a partnership arrangement instead of public procurement.
• MistakeQ5(a)Most candidates misread the GIFMIS chart of accounts segments question as asking for the classification of government expenditures. Performance was very poor.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Candidates did not answer well the measures on illegally occupied government land or buildings, although the question was a very practical one.
• MistakeQ5(d)Some candidates explained the information needs of primary users instead of the matters GPFR information helps them assess, which led to poor performance.
• Done wellQ1Performance on Q1 was fairly good overall.
• Done wellQ5(c)Candidates gave fair answers on the internal controls Assemblies can use over their revenues.

Source: ICAG's November 2020 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralCandidates handled questions about public procurement, PPPs and cash versus accrual accounting policies comfortably.
• MistakeQ1(b)Asked for the Internal Audit Agency Board's functions under Act 658, most candidates gave the Internal Audit Agency's functions instead.
• Done wellQ1(c)Most candidates answered well on the meaning of a covered entity.
• Done wellQ1(d)Candidates gave good responses to the question testing knowledge of the Conceptual Framework.
• MistakeQ1(d)(i)Candidates could not convincingly explain how the Conceptual Framework relates to IPSAS and the Recommended Practice Guides.
• Done wellQ3(a)(i)Candidates answered Q3(a)(i), on PFM control objectives relevant to PEFA, well.
• MistakeQ3(a)(ii)Candidates largely misread Q3(a)(ii) as asking about PFM pillars rather than internal control components, so most of them performed poorly.
• Done wellQ3(b)A small number of candidates prepared the common size statement correctly, and those who did scored very good marks.
• MistakeQ3(b)The majority of candidates did not prepare a common size statement and analysed the raw statements instead, earning no marks for that unrequested work.
• Weak areaQ4(b)(iv)Most candidates could not explain a joint venture as a form of public private partnership.
• Done wellQ5(b)Candidates answered well the question on Parliament's oversight responsibility.
• Done wellQ1Performance on Q1 was fairly good overall.

Source: ICAG's May 2020 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralCandidates appeared to know the Consolidated Fund's Revenue and Expenditure Accounts and Receipts and Payments Accounts well.
• Weak areaQ2Many candidates struggled badly with Question 2, which required financial statements for an educational institution.
• MistakeGeneralMany candidates could not distinguish between writing a memorandum and writing a report.

Source: ICAG's November 2019 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralSome candidates gave a small number of good or excellent answers, showing a sound grasp of the subject matter.
• Done wellQ3Question 3, on preparing the 2019 budget and budgeting approaches, was answered with some satisfaction.
• Done wellQ4Question 4, on preparing the NGO's income and expenditure statement, financial position and notes, was answered with some satisfaction.
• Weak areaQ1(d)Question 1(d), on the reasons public sector accounting benefits a national economy, was one of the two most poorly answered questions.

Source: ICAG's November 2018 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellQ1Question 1 drew reasonably satisfactory answers, unlike almost all of the other questions.

Source: ICAG's May 2018 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralA fair number of candidates gave valuable answers to the questions.
• Weak areaGeneralVery many candidates produced very poor answers to the questions.

Source: ICAG's November 2017 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralIn some cases, candidates' knowledge of other subjects, such as Corporate Strategy and Ethics and Management Accounting, helped their answers.
• Done wellQ1Most candidates answered Question 1 fairly well.
• Done wellQ2(a)Question 2(a), on authorising Consolidated Fund spending and on statutory payments, was fairly well answered.
• Weak areaQ3(a)Question 3(a), the hospital cash forecast, was very badly answered; just a handful of candidates handled it well.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Answers to Question 3(b), on IPSAS 1 characteristics of Government Business Enterprises, were fair but not very satisfactory.
• Weak areaQ4A few candidates did not perform well on Question 4.
• Weak areaQ5Question 5, on corporate governance and public-private partnerships, was poorly answered.
• Weak areaQ5Candidates had not expected corporate governance issues to appear in Public Sector Accounting and Finance, which explained the poor answers to Question 5.

Source: ICAG's May 2017 Paper 2.5 file

• Weak areaGeneralPoorly answered topics included Budget Hearing, Public Accountability, management of public expenditure and Budgetary Control.
• Weak areaGeneralIn general, candidates handled almost all questions without adequate skill.
• Done wellQ2(a)Q2(a), on the steps in national competitive tendering under Ghana's procurement law, was fairly well answered.
• Weak areaQ2(c)Q2(c), on how payments from the Consolidated Fund are made, was poorly understood by many candidates; weak answers suggested this syllabus area had not been studied.
• Weak areaQ3(a)Q3(a) on the principles of Budget Hearing was very badly answered. Only a handful of the candidates answered it well.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Answers to Q3(b), on when the Controller and Accountant General may reject an MDA payment requisition, were fair but not fully satisfactory.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Q3(b) answers suggested many candidates had not studied the Financial Administration Regulations, 2004 well.
• Weak areaQ3(c)Q3(c) on government policy objectives for public accountability was very poorly answered, probably because candidates knew very little about public accountability principles.
• Weak areaQ3(d)Q3(d) on methods to enforce budgetary control regulations was very poorly answered, probably because candidates knew very little about budgetary control principles.
• MistakeQ3(e)Many candidates mishandled Q3(e) on Accounting for Government Stores, even though the examiner considered it a fairly easy question.
• Weak areaQ3(e)Many candidates showed a very poor grasp of how government stores are accounted for.
• Done wellQ4(a)Q4(a) on the benefits to an MDA of following due process in its public procurement was understood and answered fairly well.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Many candidates failed to answer Q4(b), on policies shaping how a Local Government Authority allocates its resources, satisfactorily.
• Weak areaQ4(c)Many candidates failed to answer Q4(c), on the challenges government would face without a classification of public sector accounts, satisfactorily.
• Weak areaQ4(d)Many candidates failed to answer Q4(d), on methods government uses to make financial reforms such as IPSAS succeed, satisfactorily.
• Done wellQ5Q5 was probably among the questions best handled by the majority of candidates.
• Done wellQ5(a)Answers to Q5(a) on the meaning of revenue management and its procedures were generally satisfactory.
• Done wellQ5(b)Answers to Q5(b), on the disclosures required for the general government sector when preparing financial statements, were generally satisfactory.
• Done wellQ5(c)Answers to Q5(c) explaining tax policy and tax planning in Ghana's tax administration were generally satisfactory.
• Done wellQ5(d)Answers to Q5(d) on the benefits of merging CEPS, IRS and VATS under the Ghana Revenue Authority Act 2009 (Act 791) were generally satisfactory.
• Weak areaQ5(e)Most candidates did not understand Q5(e), which asked about the Controller and Accountant-General's role in securing public accountability.
• MistakeQ5(e)The majority described the Controller and Accountant-General's duties instead of emphasising how the office ensures public accountability.

Source: ICAG's November 2016 Paper 2.5 file

• Done wellGeneralMost candidates managed to answer every question asked adequately or in detail.
• Weak areaGeneralMost candidates were unaware that every government act needs backing in law or regulation.
• Weak areaGeneralMost candidates were unaware that public sector accounting procedures need strict application to avoid institutional failures, as Public Accounts Committee proceedings illustrate.
• Weak areaGeneralMost candidates were unaware that public sector organisations typically focus heavily on rules, procedures and precise definitions.
• Weak areaQ1Understanding Question 1, on preparing IPSAS financial statements, was a long-standing problem for candidates.
• MistakeQ1Candidates were often confused by the different classifications of flows and stocks used under IPSAS and the Government of Ghana (GOG) system.
• Weak areaQ1Despite harmonisation through GIFMIS, many candidates had still not mastered the new government financial system.
• Weak areaQ2(d)(i)Many candidates did not know the New Public Management concept or how it is intended to affect public financial management.
• Weak areaQ3(d)Many candidates still did not know the new government Chart of Accounts well.
• Weak areaQ3(d)Candidates appeared not to understand why the Chart of Accounts matters in public financial management.

Source: ICAG's May 2016 Paper 2.5 file