Dear Editor,
I had previously refrained from commenting on the allegations, indeed arguments and counter-arguments, about the apparent conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance and his wife, Mrs Geetanjali Singh from the Audit Office. This was mainly due to the fact that I had played a role in their professional growth and development from the time they both left high school in the early 1990s. However, after reading the recent comments, I feel obliged to have my say in the sincere hope that the issue can be resolved as quickly as possible, thereby freeing both parties to devote their energies in undertaking their respective tasks.
To clarify the sequence of events, Geetanjali joined the Audit Office some time in 1992 or 1993 as an Audit Clerk. About two years after, her intended husband, Ashni Singh, was recruited as Deputy Auditor General, immediately after completing his ACCA and Master’s Degree in Accounting and Finance. Geetanjali served for a number of years as my Personal Assistant, while Ashni along with G N Dwarka assisted me as members of the Executive Committee. Some time after 1997, Ashni was awarded a scholarship to do a PhD. On the eve of his departure, Ashni was married to Geetanjali, and they both left for the United Kingdom. Ashni was granted no-pay leave while his wife would have resigned from the Audit Office.
Four years later Ashni became Dr Singh while his wife completed her ACCA. Upon his return to the Audit Office, Dr Singh was promoted to Senior Deputy Auditor General. His wife did not rejoin the Audit Office, as she would have had to be offered the position of Assistant Auditor General in keeping with her new qualification. Had this happened, it would have presented a real dilemma for me, for obvious reasons. She chose instead to join the Georgetown Hospital Corporation as Chief Internal Auditor. I was in the interview panel that selected her. I learnt that she resigned from that job because of an apparent conflict of interest though I was unable to ascertain conclusively the nature of the conflict of interest.
I was in Africa during the period August 2002 to August 2004. It was during this time that Mrs Singh rejoined the Audit Office as Assistant Auditor General. Her return at that time did not pose a conflict of interest, as her husband had already been transferred to the Ministry of Finance as Director of Budget. When I demitted office in January 2005, she would have been elevated to Deputy Auditor General. Armed with an ACCA qualification, Mrs Singh was the only professionally qualified accountant among senior management, including the Auditor General (ag). With her in-depth knowledge of auditing standards, she would have obviously played a dominating role in developing audit plans and procedures for conducting audits of the public accounts of Guyana and the accounts of ministries/departments/regions. She would have also assisted in no small measure in monitoring the execution of the audits and in reviewing the results.
It is true that Mrs Singh’s specific responsibility relates to the audit of public enterprises. However, the accounts of these entities are also an integral part of the public accounts which are reported on in the Auditor General’s report. Therefore, Mrs Singh would have played a role in crafting the report of the Auditor General. I do not envisage Mr Sharma not consulting with her on crucial technical and professional issues. In particular, most, if not all, draft audit opinions would have had to go to her for
clearance before being issued.
Following the 2006 general elections, Dr Singh became the Minister of Finance. In this capacity, he is responsible for the preparation and certification of the public accounts of Guyana. The Audit Office audits these accounts and issues an opinion on their fair presentation in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing. The Minister of Finance’s wife is part of senior management in the Audit Office, and is the only qualified accountant in that group responsible for: (a) developing strategies for the audits of the public accounts; (b) providing direction and supervision of the audits; (c) monitoring their execution; (d) reviewing the results; and (e) preparing the draft report of the Auditor General.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the view that a conflict of interest arises involving the person responsible for preparation and certification of the country’s accounts, on the one hand, and one of the key persons involved in the auditing of these accounts and in expressing an opinion on them, on the other hand. That key person is the wife of the preparer and certifier of the financial statements and the most knowledgeable among that group in the interpretation and application of the International Standards on Auditing and in deciding on the content of the various reports to be laid in the National Assembly.
I call on both parties affected by the conflict of interest to do the professionally, morally, ethically correct thing. One party has to divest himself/herself of this undesirable situation. I might add that it is merely cosmetic for the Auditor General (ag) to now put in place some measures to address the issue, thereby acknowledging that the conflict of interest existed since 2006. I consider his actions as mere tinkering with what I consider to be a serious issue involving good governance, transparency and accountability. His actions also have serious implications for the integrity, credibility and professional independence of the Audit Office. I call once again on the Public Service Commission to take measures to appoint a substantive Auditor General though a transparent and competitive procedure and setting out clear criteria for appointment.
Finally, I note with concern the government has taken up a position of seeking to defend the existing situation in the Audit Office. Is this not interfering with the independence and constitutionality of an institution over which the Public Accounts Committee exercises general supervision? Are we now to believe that the Audit Office has become part of the executive, with reporting relations to the Office of the President? Is this not contrary to Article 223 of the Constitution and the Audit Act 2004. Why is the Auditor General (ag) allowing this to happen?
Yours faithfully,
Anand Goolsarran
