(Trinidad Guardian) Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass has scored a major preliminary legal victory in her legal battle over an ongoing Cabinet-appointed probe into the debacle between her office and the Ministry of Finance.
Delivering an oral ruling at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain yesterday, Appellate Judges Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar, and James Aboud upheld Ramdass’ appeal over the premature dismissal of her judicial review lawsuit.
The appeal panel ruled that High Court Judge Westmin James was wrong to have refused her leave to pursue the case on the basis that she had not raised arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success at an eventual trial.
The outcome of the appeal means that Ramdass’ substantive case over the legality of the probe will now have to be heard and determined by another judge, who is yet to be assigned.
After the decision was delivered, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who led the legal team for the Cabinet, indicated that Finance Minister Colm Imbert would inform the investigative committee led by retired judge David Harris that the aspects of the probe dealing with Ramdass and her office had to be put on hold pending the final determination of the case.
The undertaking means that the committee would definitely be unable to meet its deadline for submitting its final report in early July.
Based on Mendes’ undertaking, Ramdass’ lawyer Anand Ramlogan, SC, indicated that a stay of the probe, which Ramdass initially sought, was no longer required.
In the appeal, Ramdass’ lawyers led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, are contending that High Court Westmin James erred in finding that Ramdass did not have an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success at an eventual trial.
In her substantive lawsuit, Ramdass contended that the investigation is unconstitutional and illegal because neither Finance Minister Colm Imbert nor the Cabinet has the jurisdiction to probe the conduct of the Auditor General.
Her lawyers also claimed that Imbert was biased in initiating the probe.
The dispute between Ramdass and the ministry arose in April after the ministry sought to deliver amended public accounts, which sought to explain a reported $2.6 billion underestimation in revenue.
Ramdass initially refused receipt as she claimed that she needed legal advice on whether she could accept them after the January statutory deadline for submission.
Ramdass eventually accepted the records and dispatched audit staff to verify them.
She then submitted her original annual report to Parliament, which was based on the original records.
In subsequent legal correspondence between the parties, Ramdass claimed that her audit team was unable to reconcile the amended records based on documents it audited. She also contended that the amended records appeared to be backdated to the original statutory deadline in January.
Ramdass also took issue with the fact that the discrepancy was initially estimated at $3.4 billion.
Imbert repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
His lawyers claimed that the reconciliation after the initial estimate revealed that the variance was in fact $2,599,278,188.72, which was attributed to Value Added Tax (VAT), Individual, Business Levy and Green Fund Levy contributions.
They also claimed that checks in relation to the approximate $780 million difference between the initial and final estimated variances attributed it to tax refund cheques to taxpayers issued for the 2022 financial year being cashed in the financial year 2023.
They attributed the error to a switch from a manual to an electronic cheque-clearing system by the Central Bank.
They claimed that there was no backdating as they noted that the allegation was made because a document related to the original public accounts was inadvertently included in the revised documents.
They also contended that Ramdass acted illegally in initially refusing to accept the amended accounts.
However, they claimed that their client has, for now, decided against taking legal action against her for it.
Imbert eventually agreed to lay the original report in Parliament and did so on May 24.
His decision was based on the understanding that Ramdass would issue a special report clarifying her initial report based on the amended records provided.
Ramdass was also represented by Kent Samlal, Natasha Bisram, and Aasha Ramlal. Simon de la Bastide, SC, Jo-Anne Julien, Jerome Rajcoomar, and Sonnel David-Longe are also representing Imbert and the Cabinet.
