Posts

Posted on

Integrity Commission on shaky ground – conclusion

Re-cap
Last week we ended the column with the offices listed in Schedule I to the Act, the holders of which must automatically file with the Integrity Commission, declarations of their income, assets and liabilities of themselves, their spouses and minor unmarried children by June 30 of the following year. Formidable as the list may appear, it leaves out some very vulnerable positions. For example, it does not include members of tender boards responsible for the award of contracts; members of Go-Invest which is responsible for recommendations on concessions to investors by the government; head of the prevention of money laundering unit; police and special prosecutors; members of the Securities Council; members of tax appeal boards and possibly some statutory bodies as well. Nor does the list go deep enough. For example it includes only four positions in the GRA/Customs and would have excluded those persons allegedly associated with the Fidelity scam. The offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice are not included but would have to file as members of the Judicial Service Commission.

Complaint required
Section 42 of the Act does however make provision for the following categories of persons not listed in Schedule I. Submission of declarations by them is not automatic and requires a complaint to the Commission, an investigation and findings while any resulting declarations will be in respect of specified years only. The categories are: public officers; officers of Regional Democratic Councils; officers of the Bank of Guyana; officers of state-owned and controlled banks; officers of public corporations and other bodies corporate and agencies (including companies and bodies established by or under any statute) owned by the state or in which the controlling interest is vested in the state or any agency on behalf of the state; members of tender boards.

The Act does not define “officers” but looking at section 42 alongside Schedule I, mandatory annual submission applies only to the top echelons. In any case, any appearance of overlap should cause no problem since once the position is listed in Schedule I, submission is mandatory. The problem faced by a person seeking to utilise this provision is that s/he has to have good grounds while section 28 (3) has the effect of discouraging complaints by providing sanctions for complaints that are considered frivolous, mischievous or spiteful.

Investigation into the assets of those GRA officers allegedly involved in the Fidelity scam would therefore require a complaint by any person which would include the President. Public posturing does not constitute a complaint which in any case has to be made to the Commission and not to the Audit Office.

Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct set out in Schedule II to the Act applies to all persons in public life, but experience has shown how hard it is for breaches of the code by both scheduled and non-scheduled persons to be uncovered and penalised. Many of the provisions of the code aim to establish proper conduct by public officers but this will require a complaint or self-disclosure, hardly a reasonable expectation. It expects, quite unrealistically in our environment, that a person who has received a gift in excess of $10,000 or who has misused his/her public office for private gains will report those facts to the Commission.

Powers of the President
The Act is also very clear on the independence of the Commission and provides that “in the exercise and discharge of its functions, the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”

Perhaps it is timely to correct a view held not only by the President but also by the press, that is, the President’s role in relation to receipt of statements and publication of a list of defaulters. Section 13 is clear: the statements by persons other than members of the Commission go to the Commission. Only statements by members of the Commission are submitted to the President. The right to examine statements, make enquiries, request statements or publish names as set out in sections 17 to 19 is circumscribed by the use of the words “the Commission or the President, as the case may be” (emphasis mine). The President simply does not have the powers he claims and those who seek to speak on his behalf think he has.

Accountability
The Commission is required within three months after the end of the year to submit to the President a report containing an account of the activities of the Commission including any difficulties experienced by the Commission in the performance of its functions. Surely non-submission by relevant persons and not only MPs constitutes difficulties. The Commissioners have failed to discharge this particular responsibility for each year of the Commission’s existence, which constitutes a dereliction of their duty.

The nation is owed a full and proper explanation by the Commission’s acting Chairman, Mr Ferouz. Both as President and the self-appointed minister responsible for the operation of the Act, Mr Jagdeo owes the nation an explanation for his failure to have reports laid in the National Assembly within the prescribed time.

With the Commissioners’ continuing failures – I understand that they are now trying to work on their past reports − there are sufficient grounds for their removal under section 5 of the Act which include breach of any of the provisions of the Act, absence from meetings for two consecutive months or for three months during a period of twelve, and failure to carry out any of the functions and duties of the Commission. On these grounds, there can no longer be a basis for the pretence regarding Bishop George or the continued membership by Mr Fazeel Ferouz of the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG), Mr Nigel Hinds of the Guyana Council of Churches and Pandit Rabindranauth, Director of the National Commission of the Family. Interestingly, while the Leader of the Opposition has to be consulted on appointments it seems that removal is a matter exclusively for the President.

Legal action
During this past week head of GINA, Dr Prem Misir, and Minister of Health Dr Leslie Ramsammy, both persons required to file declarations under the Act, wrote letters to the press on the question of the submission of declarations by persons concerned. Dr Ramsammy’s letter was refreshing and persuasive and could have easily been intended for all declarants, including his political colleagues. Dr Misir’s, on the other hand, was more concerned about opposition MP’s non-filing. Another letter signed by Mr Learie Barclay actually and dangerously sought to justify an improper “dictating” by the President, incredibly, on moral grounds.

Leader of the Opposition Mr Robert Corbin, an attorney-at-law argues that since his party has challenged the appointment of the Commissioners on the grounds that the President had failed to consult with him as required by the Act, their MPs do not have to comply with the Act. The press has given few details of the action brought and the relief sought by the PNC but as far as I am aware the party did not ask for any interim relief and accordingly Dr Misir has a point that compliance is required until the court rules otherwise. The PNC could have asked, for example, either that the court grant an order staying any requirement for the submission of declarations or that declarations be submitted but sealed so that the Commissioners whose appointment is subject to the court challenge are prevented from accessing them.

The opposition should also have considered how a court would interpret and apply section 9 of the Act which allows for acts of the Commission to retain their validity even if there is any defect in the appointment or qualification of “any person purporting to be a member.” Taken literally, even if the court finds a defect in the appointment or qualifications of all the members of the Commission, they may still rule the actions of the Commissioners as valid, despite the breach of the important consultation provision of the Act. In this connection and to avoid any embarrassment, the Chief Justice needs to ensure that the judge assigned to adjudicate in the matter has been submitting the annual declaration required by the Act.

The view of some legal minds outside of Guyana with whom I discussed the matter is that the legal action against the appointment does not constitute a stay but another person took a different view − there should be no second hurdle – the first (consultations with the leader of the opposition) was not crossed so no need to consider the second (compliance). For good measure he said that only in Guyana could such things take place.

Conclusion
The Act was intended, as stated in its long title, to secure the integrity of persons in public life and creates a new offence at law – Possession of Unaccounted Property or Pecuniary Resource. That is most desirable and can go a long way in cleaning the Augean stables so far as persons in public life are concerned. It can also help to raise revenue and curb tax evasion. I can see a Commissioner General ringing his hand in glee knowing that he can demand from relevant persons further statutory evidence against which to check the accuracy and completeness of information by an important class of taxpayers. And let us be clear – that includes all those persons whose official emoluments are exempted from taxation, such as the President, the Chancellor, the Chief Justice and persons in receipt of foreign-funded salaries.

The President has retreated from his misplaced two-week ultimatum for naming those MPs who fail to submit declarations. The PNC has already stated that its MPs will not submit, rendering the threat inconsequential. The President now says he is resuscitating the Commission, an admission that he has misunderstood and sought to misapply the provisions of the Act, not dissimilar to his pronouncements on tax holidays. The result is that the Act’s noble purposes have been delayed if not defeated. We can only hope that the President and the Leader of the Opposition can agree on five persons to serve as Commissioners. Will they also address the other shortcomings of the Act such as the list of persons required to file declarations? We have to hope as well that the court has been listening and reading about the consequences of its lethargy. Something tells me that we will have a long time to wait before this issue is resolved.

Finally, public officers may feel badly done by, being subject to more stringent ethical obligations than their private sector counterparts. Perhaps it is time to repeat a call made earlier by Business Page for a Code of Conduct for persons serving in a representative capacity in private sector organisations to prevent them abusing that role for their personal and specific business interest.

Posted on

Israel’s intrusion into Gaza is a war crime

The final sentence in Roger Williams’ letter to SN (‘Israel’s action in Gaza is not a war crime,’ January 19) exemplifies the central theme of his quarrel with those of us who described Israel’s intrusion into Gaza as a war crime, the glorification of the Israeli war machine.  Are there some other dimensions, or hidden ideological agenda, to Mr Williams’ support for Israel’s cruel and inhuman attack on Gaza?

While ranting on a few issues in our letter Williams is strangely silent on other matters we raised, above all the overwhelming condemnation of the assault on Gaza by thousands upon thousands of Jews inside and outside of Israel. We limit ourselves to just two.

The first, a letter in the Irish Times signed by eight women and men describing themselves as “people in Ireland who are Jewish or of Jewish descent” made the following denunciation of the action by Israel and appeal for support for Jewish people opposing it:

“We are appalled by Israel ’s slaughter in Gaza. We have seen people justifying this on the basis of Israel’s ‘security concerns’ and attacking supporters of peace for being anti-Jewish. In this climate we feel it important to assert that it is not anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish to oppose Israel’s action. Nor, however, can it be part of any progressive political vision to conflate what the Israeli state has done and is doing in Gaza as being supported by Jews worldwide. Throughout the world, Jews have opposed the invasion of Gaza. In Israel itself, tens of thousands protested this war; they have been attacked by police and right-wing mobs and many Israelis, predominantly non-Jewish but also Jewish, have been imprisoned. We ask people to support these Israelis.

As for Israel’s security concerns, two points need to be made. Firstly nothing, but nothing, justifies the massacre of innocent people. Secondly, peace will only come about through justice for the Palestinian people and through negotiations between Israel and elected Palestinian representatives. One does not need to be Jewish to know this. We ask people not to claim to speak for us when justifying Israel’s barbarity.”

The second, a statement by British parliamentarian Sir Gerald Kaufman, made a connection at once deeply personal and political:

“My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

“My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count.”

We would urge Mr Williams to go outside the narrow corridors of Israeli propaganda and learn the real truth about the historical and contemporary relationship of the Israeli state to the people of Palestine. Israel forcibly expelled the Palestinians in 1948 and this ethnic cleansing has continued past several United Nations resolutions all the way to last week in Gaza.

The omission of a human rights dimension in Mr Williams’ response is particularly striking and at odds not just with the letter writers he critiques but with the United Nations and Amnesty International as well as the Jewish women and men, a few of whom we quote above, and the hundreds of thousands who have been demonstrating all over North America and Europe. His view that Hamas is hiding among women and children is a pathetically weak defence of the slaughter of women and children in Gaza. The majority of reports strongly indicate that the Israeli army committed crimes against surrendering citizens whose homes were free of Hamas fighters. We now learn that on the basis of international opinion and public pressure, the state is investigating “five cases” of atrocities committed by the army and the dropping of phosphorus on civilians, including the United Nations headquarters.  A BBC report stated:

“The move follows numerous allegations by rights groups and in media reports that the army fired phosphorus shells where they could harm civilians. The UN said its headquarters were hit by three such shells causing a fire destroying much of its aid supplies. White phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens on a battlefield. The Israeli army says all its weapons in the Gaza offensive were entirely legal, but until now has refused to specify which weapons it used.  White phosphorus sticks to human skin and will burn right through to the bone, causing death or leaving survivors with painful wounds which are slow to heal. Its ingestion or inhalation can also be fatal.”

If Mr Williams consider these voices as external and for that reason unhelpful, what does he say about Israel’s own Supreme Court’s interpretation that the intentional targeting of civilians such as cadets graduating from a Gazan police academy, is in conflict with current international law?

Israel cannot continue to defy world opinion on the basis of protection by big interests and a media blanket at least in the United States. The international outpouring of condemnation and the facts on the ground fully justify our claims that the Israeli army has committed war crimes in Gaza.

Yours faithfully,
Andaiye, David Hinds, Rupert Roopnaraine, Karen de Souza, Wazir Mohamed, Denis Canterbury, Alissa Trotz, Nigel Westmaas, Eusi Kwayana, Chris Ram, Abbyssinian Carto, Moses Bhagwan

Posted on

Integrity Commission on shaky ground

Introduction
There has been unprecedented focus this past week on the Integrity Commission established under the Integrity Commission Act 1997. On Monday, President Jagdeo announced that he would be meeting the Commissioners two days later to tell them that he expected they would publish within two weeks the list of MPs who were failing to comply with the Act. Simultaneously, he announced that steps would be taken to have defaulters charged. On Tuesday it was reported that in a high profile family proceedings matter a declaration made under the Act was tendered in negotiations outside of the court to support a settlement offer. On Wednesday the promised meeting did not take place even as the two main opposition parties were reported as criticising the statements by the President. On Thursday the government claimed in an advertisement that the President’s call for sanctions was consistent with the law and that the criticisms by the opposition warranted “the most profound explanation” and on Friday the PNCR leader rebuffed the President’s call.

The Act was intended to promote transparency and integrity among public officials and sets out penal sanctions for non-compliance. Unfortunately the Act met with a court challenge in 2005 by the PNCR that the appointment of the Commissioners breached the consultation requirement set out in the Act. Despite the Act’s obvious significance, the court has not yet found time to deal with the case and in the view of the PNCR, the Act is effectively in abeyance. While Parliament has continued to allocate sums of money for the Commission’s secretariat, reports are that the Commission has not been functioning for want of a quorum and questions concerning the Commission are referred to chief government spokesman, Dr Prem Misir. Meanwhile the Commission has itself not been complying with the Act, suggesting that they too consider the Act as being held in abeyance.

All the President’s Men
Desirable as it is, the President’s apparent impulsive call made without due consideration of all the provisions in the Act may have the very opposite of the objectives he intends. What the President needs to do at this stage is take legal counsel and ensure that his action does not undermine achieving transparency and corruption. He should realise that he may get as much resistance from his own people as from the opposition. Specified declarants include all the presidential advisors and many from the party who hold top positions, and disclosure may place them in the uncomfortable position of having to explain any sudden wealth.

Calling it George
The Act provides for a Commission made up of a chairman and not less than two or more than four other members, to be appointed by the President after consultation with the Minority Leader. The persons who have been appointed by the President are Anglican Bishop Randolph George as Chairman, Fazeel Ferouz of the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG), Nigel Hinds of the Guyana Council of Churches and Pandit Rabindranauth, Director of the National Commission of the Family.

Usually such legislation comes under a particular minister and while the Act refers to “the Minister” it does not identify which one, while the bill setting up the Commission was piloted by the then Attorney General, Mr Bernard De Santos. It seems, however, that the President has assumed ministerial responsibility for the Act, though this is certainly not clear.

Bishop George resigned as Chairman close to three years ago, but according to the Commission, which does not speak on the record, since his resignation has not been accepted by the President, the Bishop remains the Chairman. In fact there is nothing requiring such acceptance as section 5 (2) of the Act provides that “The chairman or any other member may resign by letter addressed to the President.”

More confusion
The announcement that the Commission has not been meeting because of a lack of a quorum seems equally misinformed since section 9 (4) provides that three persons constitute a quorum and that in the absence of the chairman the persons present can appoint a chairman. Perhaps the framers of the Act knew what they were doing by requiring the chairman to be a judge of the High Court or any other fit and proper person, and the other members to have “experience in law, administration of justice, public administration, social service, finance or accountancy, or any other discipline.” The appointments based solely on religion appear to have put in overall charge of the Commission persons whose knowledge and experience seem limited indeed, defeating the one of the objectives of the Act.

Appointments are for specified terms subject to reappointment with the terms of appointment, remuneration, etc, being determined by the President after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

The principal requirement of the Act is that designated persons set out in Schedule I of the Act must submit annually by June 30, a statement of the income, assets and liabilities for the preceding calendar year of themselves, their spouse and unmarried children under the age of eighteen. Assets and liabilities include those held in Guyana as well as those held abroad. The statements by persons other than Commissioners are to be submitted to the Commission while members of the Commission are required to submit their statement to the President. Persons who are not designated in the Act but who are in public life may also be required to submit a similar statement if a complaint has been lodged with the Commission. Section 28 (3) has the effect of discouraging certain kinds of complaints and provides for penalties for complaints that are frivolous, mischievous or spiteful.

Persons who must file statements
The President of Guyana; The Speaker of the National Assembly; Ministers including Ministers of State; Secretary to the Cabinet; Parliamentary Secretaries; Members of the National Assembly; Members of the National Congress of Local Democratic Organs; Members of the Regional Democratic Councils; Clerk of the National Assembly; Attorney-General (if not a Member of the Cabinet); Head of the Presidential Secretariat; Director of Protocol, Office of the President; Chief of Protocol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Permanent Secretaries and Deputy Permanent Secretaries; Ombudsman; Director of Public Prosecutions; Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions; Solicitor-General; Deputy Solicitor-General; Chief Parliamentary Counsel; Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel; Auditor General; Deputy Auditor General; Secretary to the Treasury; Deputy Secretary to the Treasury; Commissioner of Police; Deputy Commissioner of Police; Chief of Staff, Guyana Defence Force; Director General, Guyana National Service; Commandant, Guyana People’s Militia; Members, Elections Commission; Members, Judicial Service Commission; Members, Public Service Commission; Members, Police Service Commission; Members, Teaching Service Commission; Members, Public Service Appellate Tribunal; Police Complaints Authority; Heads of Diplomatic Missions of Guyana accredited to any other country or any international organization; Governor, Deputy Governor and Heads of Division of the Bank of Guyana; Managing Directors and Managers of State owned or controlled banks; Heads of all Government Departments; Commissioner of Lands and Surveys; Deputy Commissioner of Lands and Surveys; Commissioner of Geology and Mines; Deputy Commissioner of Geology and Mines; Commissioner of Forests; Deputy Commissioner of Forests; Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Comptroller of Customs and Excise; Deputy Comptroller of Customs and Excise; Judges of the Supreme Court; Presidential Advisors; Magistrates; Commissioner of Title; Registrar of the Supreme Court; Registrar of Deeds; State Solicitor, Official Receiver and Public Trustee; Chief Planning Officer; Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Heads of Departments, Public Corporations Secretariat; Chairmen, Managing Directors, Chief Executive Officers, General Managers and Heads of Departments of all public corporations, and other bodies corporate and agencies (including companies and bodies established by or under any statute) owned by the State or in which the controlling interest is vested in the State or in any agency on behalf of the State; Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and Deans of Faculties of the University of Guyana; Registrar General; Chief Elections Officer and Commissioner of Registration; Mayors and Deputy Mayors and Town Clerks of the City of Georgetown, Town of New Amsterdam and other towns; Members of the Integrity Commission; Regional Executive Officer and Heads of Departments of Regional Democratic Councils.

Posted on

Gave advice on technical issues to PPP/C as well as opposition parties

I would not even try to engage Mr Kwame McCoy on issues of competence, substance or integrity. I have no time for someone who questions the veracity of serious statements attributed to him only after he is publicly challenged on them. If Kwame had been following Business Page for the past decade and more he would not raise the question of whether a professional can write on matters which come to him in that capacity. That question has been dealt with publicly on several occasions, but for Kwame’s benefit, the answer is no.

His new twist is that my role as a columnist to the Stabroek News conflicts with the firm’s role as the auditor of the company which publishes it. Let me share a secret with Kwame: For the entire period that I have been a contributor to the Sunday Stabroek, I have done so as the masthead to Business Page says, as a public service, pro bono without ever taking a copy of the paper, an entitlement of every contributor.

There is no issue then of my professional obligations and any personal gain or interest conflicting. That is the test of conflict which I suggest Kwame apply to his political colleagues and tell us the results.

Kwame then claims that I am a co-author of the 2006 Manifesto of the People’s National Congress Reform. How this gentleman can elevate my statement “that I was consulted and sat in on working sessions of two of the main groups,” as co-authorship is beyond reason. My role was on technical issues relating to economics, taxation and social security, all areas in which I have some experience.

Mr McCoy may not be aware that I advised Dr Jagan on similar issues in 1992 and did the same for the PPP/C both before and to a lesser extent after the 2006 elections, adding Company Law to the list of topics. Does that make me a co-author of the PPP/C’s manifesto or policy papers?

This has nothing to do with party politics, but with serving our country.

Finally, I am glad to see the President announce the tabling of the report on the Fidelity “Mixed Beverages” scam which by pure coincidence he did on the same day that I called for its immediate release.

In tabling the report I hope the government will say how it will treat with all the relevant issues arising from it.

Posted on

The President does not have the power to issue instructions to the Audit Office

In this letter I will seek to conflate two issues involving the President and the Auditor General (ag), Mr Deodat Sharma, which taken together convince me that neither of them understands key provisions of the constitution or the Audit Act 2004, hardly a trivial issue. My conclusion is based firstly on a report in the Stabroek News of January 13, 2009 under the caption ‘Customs workers facing forensic audit as bribery probe widens,’ in which Mr Sharma is quoted as saying that the process of a forensic audit into the assets of employees at the Customs and Trade Administration (CTA) needs to be thorough since, “President Bharrat Jagdeo would expect nothing less.” The second is also an article in the same newspaper of January 20, 2009 in which questioned about the commissioning of a report into the related Customs bribery probe, President Jagdeo is reported as saying that this particular report was “a bit different than the routine annual audit,” while Mr. Sharma said it was “unlike regular reports from his Office.”

Regarding the first issue, both the President and Mr Sharma need to be reminded that the constitution makes the Audit Office “not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.” It goes without saying that that includes the President.

The Audit Act 2004 provides for two types of audit – financial and compliance audits and performance and value-for-money audits (under section 24 (1)) while section 24 (2) provides for the scope of work and broad methodology for the two types. Section 25 of the act sets a deadline of September 30 for submission of the Auditor General’s report on the consolidated financial statements and accounts of budget agencies, while section 26 provides that, “During the year, the Auditor General may choose to conduct special audits and at his discretion prepare special reports when such audits are completed.”

Where the Auditor General and the President fall into error with the President saying it was a debating point, is the scope of section 28 which provides as follows: “The Auditor General shall [N.B. not may], in accordance with article 223 of the Constitution, submit his reports to the Speaker of the National Assembly, who shall cause them to be laid before the Assembly.” That section refers to all reports and “whether it goes through the Speaker or Minister of Finance” as the President said, is more than semantics or a procedural issue. It is the result of a constitutional amendment designed to strengthen the independence of the Audit Office so that he reports not to the executive but to the National Assembly. Sadly, neither President Jagdeo nor Mr Sharma seems to appreciate the distinction.

To any reasonable person it must be clear that together the constitution and the Audit Act make the issuing of instructions by the President to the Auditor General to undertake an investigation into the Fidelity fraud allegations, to carry out so-called forensic audits of the assets of the employees of the CTA and the submission of reports by the AG to the President, unconstitutional and unlawful. After the sterling work done by his predecessor, Mr Anand Goolsarran, Mr Sharma is allowing President Jagdeo to bring the Audit Office into disrepute and it only takes a legal action by any officer called upon to submit to Mr Sharma’s “forensic audit” to have the whole process thrown out. In no country but Guyana would the head of the state audit with responsibility to audit often complex transactions in excess of two hundred billion dollars not hold a professional accounting qualification. One of the reasons for such a requirement is that the holder is subject to a professional code of conduct regulating the quality of his work and the integrity and independence he displays.

It is not that Mr Sharma has time on his hands or no work to do. In a review of the ‘Report of the Auditor General on the public accounts for the year 2006’ carried in Sunday Stabroek’s ‘Business Page’ of August 24, 31 and September 7, 2008, I pointed out some glaring weaknesses − errors of omission and commission of a professional nature in the work of his office. Perhaps a few examples drawn from those columns would suffice. The full articles are available on the Stabroek News website or at ChrisRam.net.

1. That the report did not mention the failure by the Privatisation Unit/NICIL to account for hundreds of millions of dollars, a fundamental breach of the constitution that ranks and rankles with the infamous Lotto Funds;

2. $6.513 billion advanced from the Dependants Pension Fund Deposit Fund at December 31, 2006 not being substantiated while the old Consolidated Fund bank account NO 400 had not been reconciled since 1988;

3. The failure by the Audit Office to report on the financial statements of entities in which the Government has a controlling interest;

4. Non-reporting of the hundreds of millions of flood funds which Mr Sharma had promised more than three years ago;

5. No report on concessions granted under the Investment Act, 2004, including the illegal concessions granted to Queens Atlantic Investment Inc, the saga of 2008;

6. No audit report on World Cup Cricket even as another cricket spending spree is planned next year.

The Guyanese public is accustomed to being misled by fancy-sounding but uninformed statements by public officials, some of which confuse even lawyers of the main opposition parties. The statement about forensic audit falls in that category when looked at against the quality of work referred to above and the persistent failure by the Audit Office to carry out its mandate. Mr Sharma it seems prefers to dabble in matters improperly referred to him by the President while neglecting his constitutional and statutory responsibilities such as his report for 2007 on the public accounts, already overdue by several months, and any value-for-money audits.

The Minister of Finance is a former Deputy Auditor General who served under Mr Goolsarran, and the government must therefore be aware of the several professional and personnel limitations of the Audit Office and those who control it. But since the government transacts business involving billions of dollars, often outside the norms of proper accounting, the constitution and the Financial Management and Audit Act, it is unlikely that it would like strong and independent oversight of such spending. So, really it is convenient for the government to have someone like Mr Sharma heading the Audit Office. In addition, the wife of the Senior Minister of Finance is employed as the only professionally qualified accountant in the Audit Office. By definition she is not independent and it is absolutely incompatible for her to be in the Audit Office while her husband is Minister of Finance.

To allow such serious farce in the Audit Office in my view shows contempt for the people of our bleeding country. All the talk of forensic audit is meaningless. On top of all of this, the parliamentary oversight body, the Public Accounts Committee seems completely out of its depth. Do Guyanese really deserve this?

I will deal with the President’s uninformed and misguided call for “MP’s to declare assets within two weeks or face the courts” in later correspondence.