Some questions get failed because the content is genuinely obscure. This one wasn’t. The real November 2024 Public Sector Accounting & Finance Chief Examiner’s Report is explicit: the material was “specifically stated in the syllabus.” And yet a sub-question worth 4 marks produced a pass rate under 1%. This post walks through exactly what happened, using the real question, the real examiner’s comments, and the real marking scheme.
What the Report Actually Said
Question Five asked candidates to explain, with reference to the Public Financial Management Regulation, the provisions available to a Principal Spending Officer before approving payment; distinguish misapplication from misappropriation of funds with an example each; explain four of Nolan’s Seven Principles of Public Life; and explain four functions of the State Interests and Governance Authority (SIGA), established under the State Interests and Governance Authority Act, 2019.
The examiner’s overall verdict: “The performance of candidates in the question was below expectation, with an average score of seven (7) marks.” On the SIGA part specifically: “The (c) part of the question, which was on functions of State Interest and Governance Authority (SIGA), was poorly answered. Less than 1% of the candidates had it right. Most of them dwelt so much on the functions of Public Sector Institutions. Surprisingly, the role of SIGA and other institutions were specifically stated in the syllabus.”
The Governing Principle
Almost every candidate who attempted part (c) answered a different, broader question than the one that was asked. SIGA is one specific statutory body with one specific set of real functions — among them, in the real marking scheme: evaluating the strategic plans and organisational structures of state-owned enterprises, developing a Code of Corporate Governance, ensuring dividends due the state are actually paid by specified entities, and advising government on the appointment and removal of CEOs and board members of state entities.
“Public sector institutions” in general is a much broader, much more familiar topic — and under exam pressure, that familiarity is exactly what makes it dangerous. The same question shows this pattern is not a one-off: in part (b), some candidates “confused the Nolan’s principle of public life with the International Federation Accountants (IFAC) Code of Ethics for professional accountants” — two adjacent frameworks, swapped. And in part (a)(ii), the concept of misapplication versus misappropriation of funds was well understood, but “some could not provide the examples as required by the questions” — correct definition, missing the concrete instance the marking scheme required.
Where the Marks Are Lost
Part (c) was worth 4 of the question’s 20 marks, and a sub-1% correct rate means those 4 marks were essentially unrecoverable for almost the entire cohort — an answer about the wrong institution, however well written, does not earn credit against a marking scheme built around SIGA’s specific, named functions.
Part (b) lost smaller amounts of credit wherever a candidate substituted an IFAC principle for a Nolan principle that looks similar on the surface but isn’t identical in wording or scope. Part (a)(ii) lost marks specifically on the example requirement, even where the underlying definition was accurate — a reminder that “explain the difference” and “explain the difference with an example” test two different skills. Combined, these three precision gaps are exactly why an otherwise well-prepared cohort still averaged just 7 out of 20 on the question.
The Fix
The moment a question names a specific institution, Act, standard, or section, treat that name as the actual subject of your answer — not a cue to write about its general category. Build a simple two-column comparison table for any pair of frameworks that cover similar ground, so that under pressure you retrieve the right one instead of whichever one surfaces first. And whenever your revision notes define a concept, force yourself to write one concrete example alongside the definition every single time, even when the practice question doesn’t explicitly ask for one.
Exam Tip: The instant a question names a specific institution, Act, standard, or section number, treat that name as the actual subject — not a cue to write about its general category. If you can’t recall the specific content behind that name, that is the gap to flag in revision, not to paper over in the exam hall with confident general knowledge that a precise marking scheme won’t credit.
Conclusion
Less than 1% correct, on material the examiner confirms was in the syllabus, because the question named one specific institution and almost everyone answered a broader, more familiar one instead. Train yourself to answer the exact name in front of you, and marks like these stop disappearing.
Ready to Go Deeper?
This exact breakdown — the full SIGA functions list, the Nolan’s Principles vs IFAC Code comparison, and the misapplication vs misappropriation examples — is covered in full inside the Public Sector Accounting & Finance course. Enrol now at Profstudyhub.com.
Prefer to study offline? The full course, including this exact breakdown, is also available on an encrypted pen drive — DM or comment PENDRIVE. And if you want weekly breakdowns like this one delivered free, join the Profs Accountancy Solutions newsletter for study tips, exam updates, and exclusive content.
