The purpose of this paper was to test the usefulness of auditors versus pressure groups power in enforcing accountability in public sector. It explored potential reasons that make pressure groups seemingly more powerful compared to auditors.It draws much knowledge from mobilization and lobbying model while using key literatures in the expectation gap. The paper demonstrates mobilization and lobbying model and uses data, collected from Dar es Salaam, to test significance of difference in perception between accountants and non-accountants towards pressure groups. Many-Whitney U-test has been used as a technique of testing similarity between the two groups and factor analysis as a method of finding underlying factors for pressure groups popularity over auditors. The outcomes of this study have verified that both accounting and non-accounting professionals have trust to auditors for power to influence accountability of public sector. Further, the study finds out three factors that make pressure groups more popular in the eyes of people. These factors have been identified as; first, kind of evidence that auditors seek, second, execution outcome and types of actors involved and third exposure of reports and ethical issues. Measures like educating the public on the expected role of auditors and provide for expanded audit reports by means of changing standards could best be used to reduce such perceptions. The study focuses on a single case and therefore it may not be appropriate to generalize findings in different political and cultural settings.