Dear Editor,
Article 223(1) of the Constitution of Guyana states inter-alia; ‘…the Auditor General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.’ Further on, at 223(5) the Constitution states: ‘The Public Accounts Committee may exercise general supervision over the functioning of the Office of the Auditor General in accordance with the Rules, Policies and Procedures Manual for the functioning of the Office of the Auditor General as prepared by the Auditor General and approved by the Public Accounts Committee.’ These two sections impose checks and balances between the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament and the Office of the Auditor General. In other words, while the Auditor General is insulated from ‘the direction or control of any person or authority’ at the same time, parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee, may (not shall) ‘exercise general supervision over the functioning of the Auditor General…’ What is more significant about this relationship, is the fact that the Public Accounts Committee must approve a manual on rules, policies and procedures prepared and submitted by the Auditor General.
Because of the heightened public interest in transparency and accountability as well as the media’s persistence in exposing unaccounted for public funds, this year’s Auditor General’s report has attracted greater attention. The public’s and the media’s persistent calls for corrective follow-up actions on the part of the Auditor General’s Office has not gone unnoticed. In fact, there has been no shortage of questions concerning the value of the Auditor General’s Report. Times have changed thus the greater demand for corrective action. But there is a missing link here. The AG’s job is to audit the Public Accounts of Guyana and to submit a report to the Speaker of the National Assembly. What happens when irregularities such as fraud, overpayments, monies unaccounted for and non-compliance with the laws are uncovered, is that the accounting officer at the government agency or department is called upon for an explanation and corrective action taken. End of story. In other words, those who may have presided over or colluded with others to pilfer tax dollars are slapped on the wrist and told to behave themselves, however, in future reports, the same deficiencies can be found again and again. Thus the burning question – is there a need for a fresh approach to state auditing in light of 1) global demand for greater transparency and accountability 2) greater demand at home for corrective action to remedy the deficiencies and 3) experiences in state auditing accumulated over the years?
During 2015 to 2019, under the chairmanship of MP Irfaan Ali, the Public Accounts Committee’s aggressive push for greater accountability by government agencies and departments, and a call to name and shame recalcitrant public officers, laid the foundation for what portends to be a fresh approach to public accounting laws and regulations. The next logical question would be whether PAC has the legal authority to request the Auditor General to submit an updated manual to reflect the demands for sanctions or better yet, prosecution? Further, since the manual treats with rules, policies and procedures for the functioning of the Office of the Auditor General, implicitly, there appears to be room to review, repair and strengthen either the PAC’s mandate and/or more specifically, that of the Auditor General. In other words, the Auditor General’s Office should, in addition to its current mandate, be designated a constitutional law enforcement agency since its main function is to ensure that public monies are legally and properly accounted for in accordance with the financial regulations of Guyana. If the Office of the Auditor General is not the suitable institution to be vested with such authority then consideration should be given to creating a new institution that would act as a law enforcement ‘Bridge’ between the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. That ‘Bridging Authority’ should be vested with the power to subpoena offenders of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act to appear in court to answer to crimes they would have committed.
The point is that year after year, tons of circumstantial evidence of white collar crimes populate the Auditor General’s Reports, yet rarely, notwithstanding limb and branch investigations by the Auditor General is the Guyana Police Force called in to play their role. The end result is the Auditor General can go no further. That is compounded by the lack of institutional capacity by the police to take the matter further. Consequently, highway robberies populate the Auditor General’s reports year after year. From all indications, the public’s concern seems to be over the millions, if not billions of taxpayers’ dollars that have either been frittered away by shysters paid by way of shady contracts, single/sourced to friends and supporters who in turn provide kickbacks as a reward for favours granted. The nature of the job places the Auditor General objectively in the fight against corruption since that job is to ensure that taxpayers money are accounted for in accordance with established rules and regulations. Questions have been justifiably raised about how many investigations conducted by the Auditor General’s Office have been successfully pursued by law enforcement. In the final analysis, the challenge is not only to report and investigate the malpractices and illegalities, but to change the rules to ensure decisive prosecutorial action is taken to stop the siphoning off of public funds into the pockets of unscrupulous hustlers.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
