Mistakes are a natural aspect of life, as is conflict. Neither is necessarily bad, as outcomes may indicate a need for new thinking and change. How often have we witnessed conflict between independent offices and government ministers? As the disputes play out, public mistrust deepens, and embattled independent public officers do not come out unscathed. Both parties are usually blamed, regardless of who instigated the sad episodes. Inevitably, independent officials have more to lose as public trust in politicians is not typically high, especially in times of high crime and other lapses—some entirely avoidable, like the insensitive roll-out of the property tax.
The Government and state institutions spend millions annually litigating, not always primarily in the taxpayers’ best interests but because of incompetence, procedural unfairness, and a lack of appreciation for prudent corporate practices, not all of which are found in rule books but come with experience and wisdom.
How many cases result from abuse of authority and political hubris—a kind of cockiness of higher mortals! It is vexing that taxpayers’ money is wasted on avoidable litigation when only recently, for example, parents and teachers protested the failure to make school buildings habitable and we heard the problem was no money.
Of course, sometimes litigation is indeed the wisest course of action. But public officers display their ethical orientation regarding using taxpayers’ money when they recklessly risk litigation or use it as a first recourse rather than resolving issues via mediatory and other intercessory means or just old-fashioned respectful dialogue.
Taxpayers will bear the cost of the Auditor General and Minister of Finance’s impasse over a mistake in the national accounts that could have been resolved through existing audit and clarification procedures and in discussion with the Central Bank.
It is easy to empathise with anyone who feels the dispute is tiring and a waste of money. The priority should be the public good and respect shown for constitutional obligations—the Minister of Finance’s obligation to produce accurate and verifiable accounts and the Auditor General’s mandate to audit the accounts.
Often, conflict degenerates into puerile partisan politics, as in this case. Reportedly, a discrepancy of $2.6 billion in revenue was caused by a glitch in the Central Bank’s new cheque clearance system in 2023, several months before the national accounts’ deadline. In corporate life, accounting errors happen often.
What is essential is materiality and the willingness of officials to communicate and resolve matters. A $2.6 billion error is material, so an investigation should be par for the course to improve risk management and other systems, including training, and to initiate disciplinary action if there is evidence of negligence. The $2.6 billion error was not the only material problem. An auditor must get evidence to corroborate information.
Generally, conflict between parties may occur due to change, technology, incompetence, incivility, culture, deception, interpersonal relationships, arrogance, selfish motives, political partisanship, and bounded rationality—when decision-making is based on selective perception and, therefore, limited rationality. Constitutional independence from the political executive doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be discussion and administrative cooperation between parties. Neither does it rule out robust but respectful disagreement and legitimate compromise.
Evidently, there’s a need for third-party intervention when certain situations arise to prevent the conflict from bleeding all over the public. As the legal adviser to the Government, defender of the public interest, and protector of citizens’ rights, what is the role of the Attorney General in mitigating such harmful conflict? Who has the clout to advise hardline politicians and the Cabinet on prudent options? Who’s to guide technically competent independent officers who may need broader corporate governance experience, political sensitivity, and reflective rather than reactive leadership styles?
It goes without saying that “independent” officers should stand their ground on principle to preserve the integrity of their offices. How they do that is another matter.
The Auditor General and the Minister of Finance are not above the Constitution and public scrutiny. Parliament has oversight of the Auditor General’s office and the Government’s performance, but Parliament is of limited value due to partisan politics, the Government’s dominance, and the ineffectiveness of Parliament’s oversight committees.
Co-opting impartial professionals should strengthen these committees to bring their expertise to bear as appropriate.
Of course, wise leadership and moral suasion remain the best options to resolve conflict, remembering that—to refashion the 1977 pronouncement of Lord Justice Denning—Be ye ever so high, the people are above you.
