It is a certainty in life that some people will be thieves.

It may be due to greed, personal tragedy, desperation or because the temptation was simply too great.

Nor does it matter where they work, or what level of responsibility they have ? except that the more responsibility a person has, the larger the amount that may be taken.

The events of recent weeks are a timely reminder that no institution, not least Government, is immune from the potential of theft. What is important is that the necessary controls are in place to either make theft impossible or easy to detect as quickly as possible.

The recent cases of Harrison Isaac Jr. and Teketa Thompkins demonstrate that the controls in the Accountant General?s Department were totally inadequate, thus enabling Isaac ? who even lied about his qualifications ? to steal millions of dollars of the public?s money.

It would be tempting to say that this was an aberration, but that clearly is not the case. Other employees of the same department have been caught and convicted, and other departments, notably Immigration, have also seen similar crimes, albeit on a smaller scale, committed.

As the Public Accounts Committee has noted this week, people have gotten away with fraud partly because managers did not properly use their power to oversee their actions.

The joint committee said the Accountant General?s Department believed there were ?good controls systems? in place to block fraud, but that managers and supervisors had ?not always properly exercised their oversight role or system faults have been exploited?.

It added: ?In light of the magnitude and frequency of frauds perpetrated within the Accountant General?s Department, your committee strongly recommends that a risk assessment and analysis be completed as a matter of urgency.?

It is a truism that a system is only as good as the people who administer it, and this has once again been proven. The Isaac case is a classic example. In spite of the fact he was not qualified for the job he held, he was given sole control over a number of accounts and was able to steal millions of dollars without anyone apparently noticing.

As has been reported in , it was sheer chance that he was caught, and he was hardly discreet as he lived the high life. But no one seemed to notice, or worse, to care.

Finance Minister Paula Cox has stated that the Government?s re-established Internal Audit section now investigates ?any fraudulent activity and thefts of Government property? as well as preparing reports on findings and recommendations to prevent reoccurrence.

And she said more financial controllers in all Ministries had been hired. ?Of significant importance,? she added, ?the Accountant General is near to concluding the implementation of a Government accounting infrastructure that involves placing qualified accountants throughout Government at the departmental or Ministry level, to ensure financial controls are improved and accounting needs are met.?

It is possible to have some sympathy with Government. It faces the same kinds of challenges as most other local employers in competing for qualified individuals in accounting and other fields. The best practitioners are likely to be hired by international companies and the like, reducing the pool of qualified staff. It may well be true that Government has tended to be the employer of last resort. This is not to say that all accountants in Government are poor. Some are excellent and the community is fortunate that there are people who put public service first. But as the Isaac case shows, Government is at risk from less tan qualified and irresponsible staff, and all the infrastructure in the world won?t prevent human failings.

But that cannot and must not mean that the public should expect and accept that their money will be stolen from time to time. They have to demand higher standards. One approach is to ensure that systems are simple and easily understood. Adding sophisticated information technology systems to an overburdened system is not necessarily the solution as the Customs Department has demonstrated with its ill-fated CAPS system. Often it can make theft easier.

Ensuring good bookkeeping practices are followed instead is the answer. Reconciling accounts, ensuring two approvals are given when large sums of money are paid and other basic actions would do a good deal to prevent theft. It seems obvious that they are not.