Increasing accountability is a key element in a wide variety of governance reforms, from national level, public sector restructuring, to anti corruption campaigns and to centralise service delivery at local levels. (Van Wyk, 2002:311). Financial accountability has a major effect on performance issues, and these two combined have implications on democratic accountability. It is obviously a fact that when public officials become accountable, this will have a positive effect on service delivery. The introduction of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) 1999 (Act 1 of 1999) as amended by Act 29 of 1999 adopts an approach to financial management, which emphasises the need for accountability of results by focusing on output and responsibility rather than the rule driven approach of the previous Exchequer Acts. One quickly realises that the PFMA aims to regulate financial management at both National and Provincial levels of government. It directs attention at revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities and aims to see that these are managed efficiently and effectively. Public finance accountability is increasingly becoming important in the public sector. One means of effecting accountability is through auditing. For this reason the Office of the Auditor -General through the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 (Act 108 of 1996 section 216 (1)) was established to facilitate effective accountability through auditing. The Office of the Auditor -General’s role is by no means minor, for it plays a major role in curbing corruption and acts as a ‘watchdog’ of the nation over public funds. Amidst high mismanagement and misuse of public resources, as well as corruption, especially in developing countries, the major question one asks is how effective the Auditor -General can be in ensuring effective public financial management and accountability within state departments so as to improve service delivery.