Dear Editor,
In my letter regarding the recent confirmation of Mrs Geetanjali Singh as an Audit Director in the Auditor General’s Office, I described the ensuing public reaction, as an “imbroglio, politically inspired and concocted,” and contended that the same constituted an “attack by members of the legislature and their cohorts” upon the Auditor General’s constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed independence (‘The squabble over conflict of interest in the Audit Office is much ado about nothing’ SN, July 13). As if solely to lend lyrical prophesy to Bob Marley’s “who the cap fits…” Mr Christopher Ram has replied (‘The Attorney General completely disregarded the principles and authorities on bias in the matter of Mrs Singh’s position,’ SN, July 16).
In his answer, Mr Ram accuses me, inter alia, of creating “mischief”; being “misleading” and “misinformed”; and says that my letter would be seen as “unworthy,” “self-serving” and “opportunistic.” To these ad hominem remarks, I shall not respond, and to those venomous levels I refuse to descend. I prefer to predicate my public exchanges on more rational, civil and mature foundations.
1. Mr Ram implies that my contribution to the ongoing public debate may impact upon a complaint lodged by his accounting firm with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, incidentally of which he is a member. This unwitting revelation by Mr Ram lends itself to certain significant inferences.
Firstly, that he resides very little faith, not only in the merit of the complaint lodged, but also in the integrity of the body to which it has been lodged. His obvious apprehension is that there is a likelihood that the body will be influenced by my views, rather than by the applicable principles attendant to the complaint.
Secondly, that my article not only contains compelling argumentation, but is deeply grounded in merit for it to be capable of having such a potent impact, Mr Ram’s derision of it notwithstanding.
Thirdly, I have neither seen nor heard similar protestations from Mr Ram in respect of the views expressed by others on this matter which tend to corroborate or lend support to the complaint for which Mr Ram protagonises. If the Institute of Chartered Accountants is as fickle as Mr Ram apparently perceives it to be, then a reasonable conclusion is that Mr Ram strategises to have them swayed in one direction only. This must constitute an indictment on a most prestigious professional organization.
2. I have cited two cases from the Guyana Court of Appeal in support of my arguments. They were decided by that court when it was the summit of the hierarchical structure of Guyana’s judiciary. To date, these cases have not been overruled. In fact, and to the contrary, over the years, they have been repeatedly cited with approval by subsequent courts. The doctrine of stare decisis, with which Mr Ram must have some familiarity, mandates that these cases be followed unless and until they have been overruled. The judges who presided in those cases included some of the most shining judicial lights produced by Guyana. They include, Chancellors E V Luckhoo and Keith Massiah, and Justices of Appeal Bollers and Crane. Their judgments in these two cases span over 110 pages in the Law Reports, yet Mr Ram, who by any standard would be considered a mere embryo at the Bar, condemned these cases and the jurisprudence adumbrated therein as “discarded.” The disrespect is simply scandalous.
3. I graciously concede that I committed a factual error when I wrote that Mrs Singh’s employment at the Auditor General’s Office was continuous since 1992. There was indeed a short hiatus in her employment, but that hardly detracts from the facts at issue and for the purpose of this discourse, can be considered wholly immaterial.
4. Mr Ram next proceeds to scold me for not expressly acknowledging the current Auditor General’s acting status and for omitting to comment on the method of his acting appointment. Relevance remains the compass by which civilised discourse is guided, if it is to be constructive and fruitful. The status of the current holder of the office of Auditor General and the method of his appointment is a non sequitur and wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
5. Mr Ram next similarly accuses me of disregarding the principles and authorities on bias. Inexplicably, he has demonstrably failed to grasp that the debate concerns ‘conflict of interest’ and not ‘bias.’ Similar as they may superficially appear to be, these are two different and disparate legal concepts. Bias was simply introduced by me analogously and tangentially, therefore, the cases referred to by Mr Ram on the issue of bias, are simply not germane. They do not involve family relations placed in contradictory-interest positions. That remains the quintessence of the debate. The expositions on the Pinochet and GT&T cases are therefore unwarranted.
6. The subject of Mr Ram’s next vicious attack was my reference to the legal profession for guidance. If Mr Ram continues to persevere in a legal career, he will hopefully realise that legal reasoning by analogy is a most effective weapon in the jurisprudential armoury of any successful advocate.
Surprisingly, though Mr Ram expounds lengthily about the code of ethics of the accounting profession, he has not cited or identified a single one applicable to the issue at hand. His arguments therefore remain vacuous.
After reading Mr Ram, I am now even more convinced that the squabble is much ado about nothing.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall
