Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran is calling on either Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh or his wife Geetanjali Singh to do the professionally morally and ethically correct thing and resign from their post in light of the conflict of interest situation that has arisen with the latter’s ascension to Audit Director at the Audit Office.
“One party has to divest himself/herself of this undesirable situation,” said Goolsarran in a letter which appeared in the Sunday Stabroek.
He noted that when Dr. Singh became Minister of Finance following the 2006 general elections, he became 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,” said Goolsarran.
“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,” he said. “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,” he added.
Further, Goolsarran noted with concern that government has taken up a position of seeking to defend the existing arrangement.
“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?” he asked.
Geetanjali Singh’s ap-pointment and the manner in which it was done have both been lightning rods for criticism by the parliamentary opposition, which have been firm that the conflict of interest is harmful to the integrity and credibility of the Audit Office.
Goolsarran, who said he played a role in the Singhs’ professional growth and development from the time they both left high school in the early 1990s, said he felt obliged to weigh in on the situation, in the hope that the issue can be resolved as quickly as possible, thereby freeing both parties to devote their energies in undertaking their respective tasks.
He recalled that Mrs Singh joined the Audit Office some time in 1992 or 1993 as an Audit Clerk and about two years after, her eventual husband, Ashni Singh, was recruited as Deputy Auditor General, immediately after completing his ACCA and Master’s Degree in Account-ing 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,” he said.
Sometime after 1997, Ashni Singh was awarded a scholarship to do a PhD and on the eve of his departure, he was married to Geetanjali, and they both left for the United Kingdom, Goolsarran noted. Ashni Singh 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,” he said.
Goolsarran noted that 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,” he said.
Goolsarran was working in Africa from August 2002 to August 2004, during which time, he said, 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),” he noted.
According to Goolsarran, with her in-depth knowledge of auditing standards, she would have 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,” he said. “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 ac-counts 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,” he said.
Goolsarran also called on the Public Service Commis-sion to take measures to appoint a substantive Auditor General, through a transparent and competitive procedure and setting out clear criteria for appointment.
