Following a lengthy, heated debate, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament has decided to simultaneously scrutinise the Auditor General’s reports of 2017 and 2018.
After listening to arguments from both sides of the House and advice of the Auditor General Deodat Sharma, PAC Chairman Jermaine Figueira on Monday stated that the Committee would be reviewing the 2017 and 2018 reports simultaneously.
During the debate, it was noted that at the second meeting of the PAC in January of this year, the committee had unanimously decided to consider the reports of 2017 and 2018 together.
Figueira, using precedent set by two past chairmen, Carl Greenidge and Irfaan Ali, had proposed that the reports for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 be merged to expedite the scrutiny of government expenditure, but members of the government side of the House objected.
Sharma advised the committee that based on previous experience, “instead of merging three years if you merge 2017 and 2018 and then 2019 and 2020 [it would be easier]. [Putting together] three years in briefing notes is more troublesome.”
Government’s Chief Whip Gail Teixeira, who was against consolidating the reports for the three years, argued that the other years were not being given the same level of attention as 2016, which is still ongoing. She argued that a number of transgressions highlighted the following years should be given the same attention.
“There are serious transgressions we have noted in the 2016 report and I don’t think as a committee we should in anyway treat with that lightly and we should give the same importance to 2017. We feel that the 2017, 2018 and 2019 reports can be done and in no way be an impediment to charges being brought against who have been found committing transgressions in the AG’s report,” she argued.
She cautioned that time must be given for the consideration of the draft report before it is presented to the National Assembly as she explained the committee had not completed its report for the AG’s 2016 report.
She pointed out that the reports of 2010 and 2011 are still to be adopted by Parliament and she said she would not wish for a recurrence.
When deliberations continued after lunch, government member, Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill made a proposal for year by year scrutiny while saying that a number of wrongdoings took place during the APNU+AFC’s administration of the country.
However, opposition members of the committee argued that while they must dedicate time to pursue the draft reports, they cannot waste precious time as the committee has a significant backlog.
The move to consolidate the report of 2017 and 2018 was proposed in a bid to fast track the work of the PAC. Opposition Member Ganesh Mahipaul presented minutes from the January 4, 2021 meeting, in which government members supported the consolidation of the 2017 and 2018 reports.
It was pointed out that government members had stated that with the review of the 2016 report being advanced, they would complete the year in its entirety before moving on to dealing with 2017 and 2018.
Former Chairman of the PAC David Patterson pointed out that minutes from the Hansard department recorded members as giving their commitment to scrutinise the reports simultaneously.
Teixeira, who had previously supported treating the 2017 and 2018 reports simultaneously, said she wished to reconsider her position.
“Mr Chairman, I am the one you said made the proposal and as the person who made it then I am saying that… I have withdrawn and reconsidered my position and I am opposed to dealing with these accounts on a combined basis,” she stressed, while noting that at the time she did not have the information from the Auditor General’s report.
However Figueira informed that the position of the committee was taken earlier this year to merge the consideration of the report would be upheld.
During arguments in support of the proposal, Mahipaul said that the committee needs to work as quickly possible to catch up with the 2020 Auditor General’s Report, which is yet to be laid in the National Assembly, in the interest of transparency and accountability for the public purse.
The opposition members further argued that the longer it takes for the committee to get a report, it is much more difficult to recover sums and even prosecute contractors for shoddy work.
Finance Secretary Sukrishnalall Pasha stated that after three years it may be difficult to approach the court and get any remedy to recoup sums for overpayments or otherwise made to contractors.
However, he clarified that the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act does make some provision for action to be taken against officials.
Teixeira, however, rebutted by saying that the committee can only recommend what route of actions should be taken as the constitution does not empower the body to investigate or institute charges against anyone. She made the comment to point out that it does not matter what year is being reviewed as the committee can only make recommendations. She added that with the difficulty in locating former accounting officers, such as Permanent Secretaries and Regional Executive Officers, they still may not be able to prosecute anyone. “Some of these arguments that we are putting forward don’t hold water… let’s be frank… all of this is to ensure that some of the wickedness that took place in 2017, 2018, 2019 are not treated as it should be, like we treated 2016,” Teixeira opined.
Teixeira also called for special audits to be brought before the committee for scrutiny as it is a part of their mandate. She said that aiming to clear the backlog does not alone account for efficacy of the committee.
