Former Auditor General, Anand Goolsarran said that the acting Auditor General, Deodat Sharma cannot continue to act in the position until age 65 and that he must demit office at either age 55 or 60.
However Sharma said that there is a provision that allows him to act until age 65. He said also that the age of retirement for him is 60.
“If he is acting he cannot go until 65…he has to come off at 55 or 60,” said Goolsarran in a comment to this newspaper. He said that under the Audit Act, the acting Auditor General will be entitled to a contributory pension scheme.
Goolsarran said that for a substantive Auditor General, the age of retirement is 65. But for the acting Auditor General, the age of retirement is 55. Sharma has been acting Auditor General for the past seven years since the departure of Goolsarran from the post.
Speaking to Stabroek News last week, Sharma said that he was 54 years of age and averred that under the Audit Act, the age of retirement is 60. He said that a person acting in the position of Auditor General can be there up to age 65.
Clause 17 of the Audit Act of 2004 says that every officer and employee re-employed within the Audit Office under section 16(2) “shall receive superannuation with respect to his pensionable service prior to the prescribed date on attainment of the age of fifty-five years and, for that purpose, his pensionable emoluments on attainment of the age of fifty-five years shall be deemed to be his pensionable emoluments on the date immediately preceding the prescribed date.”
Speaking to Stabroek News, Attorney at Law and Chartered Accountant Christopher Ram said that the acting Auditor General is not qualified to be in the position and hence he would not entertain questions as to when he should be retiring.
In a letter in this newspaper recently, Ram said that Sharma did not have the qualifications to be the Auditor General and that he has to rely on the wife of the Minister of Finance “who is responsible for the country’s public finances generally and solely responsible for the Contingencies Fund.”
“The lack of that competence that comes with professional training has meant that in the six audit reports on the public accounts Mr. Sharma has issued since he was appointed to act, he could do no better than identify two major issues – the tendering procedures for drug purchases and the fact that the drawings from the Contingencies Fund did not meet the qualifying test. But he did not initiate the disclosures – they were continuing developments identified by his predecessors,” Ram said in his letter. He noted too that in relation to the Contingencies Fund, Sharma’s reports “consistently misquote the law relating to replenishments – conveniently to the advantage of the Minister.”
“No wonder it takes him more than three months to report on a $90 million expenditure in an engagement in which he is taking a lead role. Such an audit should take a pair of reasonably capable junior auditors properly guided two weeks maximum,” said Ram. This was a reference to an investigation of expenditure for the police force for the elections period last year.
“The Constitution of Guyana provides that whether as a substantive appointment or acting Auditor General, the appointment of the Auditor General is made by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Public Service Commission. Whether or not President [Donald] Ramotar wants to deal with corruption, it is time that Guyana has a proper Auditor General,” said Ram.
