Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass. - File photo by Jeff K Mayers
THE Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will meet on November 13 at 10 am at the Red House to discuss the Auditor General's report on the public accounts for the 2023 financial year and a subsequent special report on these accounts that was provided by the Auditor General.
On November 7, the Privy Council dismissed an appeal by Finance Minister Colm Imbert and the Cabinet against the judicial permission given to Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass to pursue her lawsuit challenging a state-ordered probe of circumstances surrounding the auditing the 2023 public accounts and its submission to Parliament.
Five Privy Council law lords gave their immediate decision on Imbert's challenge of the reversal of the premature dismissal of her lawsuit.
The dispute between Ramdass and Imbert began in April, after the ministry sought to deliver amended public accounts to explain and rectify an error in which government revenue was understated to the original sum of $3.4 billion, and subsequently to $2.6 billion.
The statutory deadline to provide the accounts was January 31. Ramdass was given the first set of accounts for 2023, which was audited but not yet submitted, when she was told by the ministry that the first accounts were understated by $2.6 billion.
>
By statute, the Auditor General has to annually audit the public accounts provided by the ministry.
On April 15, the ministry sent new accounts which contained a significantly higher statement of revenue.
Ramdass initially refused to accept the second set of accounts, arguing her office had completed the audit, but relented after legal action was threatened. In her legal challenge, she claims she was bullied into accepting the second set of accounts.
Ramdass’ office audited the second set of accounts, but said her audit team could not reconcile the increase in revenue reported by the ministry. This was noted in the audit report submitted to Parliament on the 2023 accounts.
On May 7, the Finance Ministry announced the appointment of the investigative team to probe the understatement of revenue for the 2023 financial year. The team, led by retired judge David Harris, was selected to look into Ramdass’ response to the second set of accounts, her audit report statements, and any related matters, while making findings and recommendations.
On May 16, Ramdass’ legal team sought permission to have the court review the appointment of a team to investigate her, arguing this move was tainted by apparent bias and breached her constitutional protections. Her team argued that neither Imbert nor cabinet had the jurisdiction to probe the conduct of the Auditor General.
On June 21, Justice Westmin James refused her application. This was overturned by the Appeal Court in June. Ramdass was permitted to pursue her challenge before another judge. The investigation of Ramdass and her office was also stopped.
However, the Harris team was allowed to continue all other parts of its terms of reference.
In his ruling, James held that section 116(6) of the Constitution, which insulates the Auditor General from being under the direction and control of any other power or authority, could not apply to investigations such as the one ordered by the Cabinet.
>
He also said Ramdass failed to prove bias by Imbert, as he noted that the minister and his ministry were also subject to the probe.
However, Appeal Court judges Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and James Aboud held that the threshold for granting leave in such a case was low.
“Leave will therefore be granted because as a matter of law, the low arguability threshold has been attained,” Rajkumar ruled.
In its ruling, the Appeal Court held that the legal precedent set in the case involving the Chief Justice was different from Ramdass’ case, despite James's belief that the case applied.
Rajkumar held in that case, the association did not have a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation into the Chief Justice’s alleged conduct.
In submissions before both local courts, the minister’s lawyers claimed the reconciliation after the initial estimate revealed that the variance was in fact $2,599,278,188.72, which was attributed to Value Added Tax (VAT), individual, business levy and Green Fund Levy contributions.
They also claimed that checks in relation to the approximate $780 million difference between the initial and final estimated variances attributed it to tax-refund cheques to taxpayers issued for the 2022 financial year being cashed in the financial year 2023.
They attributed the error to the Central Bank's switch from a manual to an electronic cheque-clearing system.
They claimed there was no backdating, as they noted that the allegation was made because a document related to the original public accounts was inadvertently included in the revised documents.
>
They also contended that Ramdass acted illegally in initially refusing to accept the amended accounts.
Imbert eventually agreed to lay the original report in Parliament and did so on May 24.
His decision was based on the understanding that Ramdass would issue a special report clarifying her initial report, based on the amended records provided.
The Public Administration and Appropriations Committee meets at 2.30 pm on the same say to discuss expenditure related to certain divisions in the Tobago House of Assembly (THA).
