Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran believes that government’s continued non-disclosure of the detailed spending with regard to World Cup Cricket, the Great Flood of 2005, and Carifesta 2008 is likely to fuel suspicion as to whether those resources were properly spent.
He said too that government needs to move forward to appoint a substantive Auditor General since the prolonged acting role of Deodat Sharma is hurting the ability of the Audit Office to effectively discharge its constitutionally mandated responsibility.
Goolsarran is of the view that given the large amounts expended on the projects mentioned above, it may be necessary for special audits to be undertaken by the Audit Office.
“I must say that I was very disappointed to learn that there was no detailed audit of these expenditures and public reporting of the results in order to give the public assurance that all is well with the monies that would have been expended,” Goolsarran said in a recent interview with Stabroek News.
“The National Assembly would have approved some of the money expended for these various activities under various ministries; for example, the flood relief might have been allocated under the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Cricket World Cup under the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport. To the extent that these monies would have been expended under these ministries then these [expenditures] will have to find their way into the accounts of the country,” he said.
“I don’t know to what extent the Audit Office has been auditing these, but I know that there have been calls for in-depth audits of all these activities. I am aware that the Audit Office promised to do in-depth studies [of these expenditures] and I am also aware that there is a public concern that this has not been done. To that extent, I, as a member of the public, would also be concerned… I understand that a number of donor agencies had put money into the flood relief efforts. If the Audit Office had promised to do a special audit and it has defaulted on this then this is a problem in its own right. We haven’t got the level of assurance that these monies were properly spent,” he said.
Goolsarran said that to the extent that the audits are not done, it will cause persons to believe that there is something to hide. “I don’t want to use the word corruption, but obviously the public needs to know that there is an independent audit of the expenditure and an assurance that all is well,” he said.
Asked about the nature of the audit that must be done on the expenditure, he said that an audit is not complete unless it seeks to ascertain that value has been received for sums expended. “You have to go behind the transaction and satisfy yourself that value has been received,” said Goolsarran.
As regards the appointment of an Auditor General, Goolsarran said, “the Constitution requires that there shall be an Auditor General, and for all intents and purposes the appointment ought to be a substantive one.”
He said, “The spirit of the Constitution is therefore not being adhered to. It is acceptable if you have an acting appointment for a few months to allow time to identify a suitable candidate. Even in my case, when I [started] in 1990 I acted for three months after which I was substantively appointed. The maximum period in which you should allow someone to act to allow for an in-depth search should be six months. A prolonged acting arrangement is likely to adversely affect your ability to discharge your responsibility faithfully and without fear or favour, affection or ill will, and honour, uphold and preserve the Constitution.”
He said when a person is acting in a capacity, he or she is dependent on someone either for a continuation of the acting arrangement or in the hope of being substantively appointed. “That’s a lot of pressure, especially if you haven’t met the requirements of the post. You are therefore hard-pressed to be as critical of government operations as you would have liked to be. The present arrangement is therefore far from being satisfactory,” he said.
Asked what the qualifications were for the position of Auditor General, Goolsarran said when he had drafted the Audit Act 2004, he included requirements such as a professional accounting qualification with significant experience in public finance and administration; or in lieu of a professional accounting qualification, an advanced degree in accounting, economics, law or public administration. In other words, the person must be an expert in the relevant field. “This is particularly so because the position is a constitutional one and the holder of the position enjoys a compensation package similar to that of the Chief Justice. However, the government removed qualification requirements from the final legislation,” he said.
“The ideal candidate must have the relevant qualifications and substantial experience preferably in public administration. [The ideal candidate] should be a mature person preferably between the ages of 50 to 55 since the retirement age is 65. You don’t want an Auditor General to serve for more than ten years, as in the case of Canada. South Africa has a term limit of seven years. Term limits do enhance the independence of the Auditor General,” Goolsarran pointed out.
Goolsarran also stated that the Companies Act requires the external auditor of a company, be it state-owned or otherwise, to be a professionally qualified accountant. “The current acting Auditor General has not met this requirement,” he said.
He said as far as the auditing of central government activities is concerned, since there are no qualification requirements, then other criteria would have to be applied in considering whether the current acting Auditor General should be substantively appointed. “These include: leadership ability; quality and timeliness of reporting; professional integrity; ethical considerations; independence of mind, and so on. An important consideration is the level of remuneration offered which as indicated before is similar to that of the Chief Justice. Under the existing arrangement, it is the Public Service Commission that has to make a recommendation to the President, which is a bit of an anomaly since the Audit Office is delinked from the Public Service,” Goolsarran explained.
“I had put in the draft Audit Act that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should come up with the names of three candidates, and the President makes the appointment subject to ratification by two thirds of the elected members of the National Assembly. But this did not find favour with the government. Be that as it may, the Public Service Commission should consult with key stakeholders such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana, private sector representatives and the trade unions, and make a recommendation to the President. In the long run, the Public Accounts Committee would have to be involved, and the appropriate amendments to the relevant legislation made,” Goolsarran concluded.
