Senior Multimedia Reporter
peter.christopher@guardian.co.tt
Friday’s Parliamentary motion which extended the period to report on financial accounts for fiscal 2023 is being described as an attempt to force the Auditor General out of her office.
This was the position taken by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who discussed the matter at the Epic Hanuman Charlisa Chanting event at the Divali Nagar, Chaguanas, yesterday
“There are definitely signs that they attempted to hound her out of office. In Parliament yesterday, last night, both the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance, launched a scathing attack on the independent Office of the Auditor General,” said Persad-Bissessar, who said she believed the motion was a further attempt by the Government to intimidate Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass.
Ramdass became the Auditor General last November, having served as the deputy to predecessor Lorelly Pujadas from 2019 to 2023.
According to her bio on the Auditor General’s website, Ramdass joined the office in 1994 and has held key leadership positions in the Auditor General’s Department for over 25 and has extensive experience in financial, value for money and information technology auditing.
Friday’s motion, which was moved by Finance Minister Colm Imbert, stated that it was necessary, in respect of the financial accounts for 2023, that the period of time specified under Sections 24 and 25 of the Audit and Exchequer Act (69:01) be extended. These pertain to the periods when the Treasury must send the Auditor General accounts.
However, Persad-Bissessar questioned the Government’s intention, noting that Ramdass had been presented with a pre-action letter after being reluctant to accept late information concerning revenue for the annual report.
“She stood her ground and said ‘no, these are coming in after the statutory legal timeframe. I cannot accept them’. Eventually, they sent her a pre-action letter, a pre-action letter to the Auditor General telling her she must accept the records. She asks for legal advice. The AG (Attorney General) said I can’t advise you because I have to advise the Government. But you could go and get your own lawyers, you can get private lawyers,” said Persad-Bissessar.
“Thereafter, after she accepted the records and I have it here on my phone, she accepted the increased revenue. The Minister of Finance was trying to get her to say there was more revenue of about $3 billion, she took those accounts even though they were out of time, but then she could not reconcile it. In other words, she couldn’t find the reported $3 billion anywhere.”
The motion was passed following a vote at 8.45 pm on Friday, with 19 Government votes for to 14 Opposition votes against.
Persad-Bissessar acknowledged though, that had all Opposition MPs been present for the vote, the motion would have been defeated.
“I don’t know who left. I know I was there. And I voted. If we were all there yesterday, a very historic vote would have taken place because the Government numbers were down,” Persad-Bissessar said.
She added, “If all the UNC members were present, history would have been made because there would have been a tie in the vote. The Speaker would then have to make that final vote. But the protocol has always been and the practice has always been where a speaker is called upon to decide what happens in a tie, they vote with the status quo. That is to let things remain as they are. So that vote yesterday on that motion to extend the time for the Auditor General’s reports would have been defeated yesterday should the MPs have been responsible enough to remain in the Parliament and vote.”
During the vote, three Government MPs, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley and Ministers Stuart Young and Camille Robinson-Regis were absent, while of the 19 Opposition MPs, absent were MPs Rodney Charles, Rushton Paray, Dinesh Rambally, Rai Ragbir and Anita Haynes-Alleyne.