Review of audit office appointments still on PAC agenda – Greenidge

Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Carl Greenidge has said that addressing the appointments made to the Audit Office, including that of the wife of the Minister of Finance, remains on its agenda.

The appointment of Gitanjali Singh, wife of Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, to Audit Director, generated considerable concern and public debate on whether she faced a potential conflict of interest in the performance of her duties at the Audit Office, which is responsible for auditing the government accounts prepared by the minister.

And despite the suggestion that the vote on the appointments is “a done deal,” Greenidge is still awaiting clarification on the Standing Orders to determine whether the process was proper.

“Regarding the staffing of the Audit Office, the issue is still up in air since the issue of eligibility of at least one person because of possible conflict of interest is still unresolved,” said Greenidge.

“We sent something to the Standing Orders Committee and we are still to hear from them. It will also depend on consultations among the parties,” he said.

According to Greenidge, it is hoped that with additional sittings of the PAC, the issue would be given attention and hopefully resolved. He said that the opposition is still of a mind to reverse the appointments.

Former PNCR MP Vincent Alexander, writing in a letter to the editor, said that the appointment of persons to various posts in the Audit Office through the PAC vote was a “done deal” because of the absence of one of the opposition members and because of the fact that the Chairman did not have a vote in the circumstances.

Greenidge had proposed to have the National Assembly examine whether or not he was entitled to a vote.

At a meeting on June 25, he did not vote when the appointments, including that of the wife of the Finance Minister, were forced through. PPP/C members on the committee took advantage of the absence of AFC member Trevor Williams.

Greenidge was said to have accepted the advice of the Clerk of the National Assembly, which was that according to the Standing Orders, he did not have a vote.

In shining light on the matter, Alexander directed the public to the Standing Order 70(2) which lists the PAC as a sessional select committee. “Standing Order 74(3) Division in Select Committees states [that the Chairman shall not have an original vote but in the event of an equality of votes he shall give a casting vote],” he said.

Alexander stated that when this Standing Order is applied to the sitting of the PAC on the occasion of the approval of the staff of the Auditor-General’s Office, “the facts are as follows: The PAC comprises nine members: four from the government and five from the opposition. On the day in question eight members were in attendance… four from each side. Mr Greenidge was presiding as chairperson and was entitled to vote only if there was an equality of votes (tie), after the other members would have voted.”

He noted that the four government members voted for the appointments. The three opposition members voted against. “There was no equality of votes hence the chairperson could not vote,” he said. “The appointments were therefore a done deal. The absence of one opposition member made it a done deal,” he said in his letter.

Greenidge had in June said that the revision of the Standing Orders was not done in a comprehensively enough manner, resulting in inconsistencies with regard to the power of the PAC Chairman to vote. According to Greenidge, some Standing Orders said he had a vote while some said he did not have a vote.