(Trinidad Express) Why is the conduct of Finance Minister Colm Imbert not also being investigated over a $2.5 billion understatement in this country’s 2023 public financial records?
This was one of the questions asked on Thursday by Lady Simler, one member of a five-judge panel at the Privy Council, in London as the British law lords unanimously dismissed an appeal brought by Imbert and the Cabinet against Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass, related to the understatement.
During the hearing, Lady Simler questioned Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes on why Ramdass, but not Imbert, was being investigated, suggesting that the investigation was one-sided.
Lady Simler said to keep the investigation “even-handed,” Imbert’s conduct should also be investigated.
She did so as Mendes, lead attorney for Imbert and the Cabinet, was making submissions. Mendes did not give a direct answer to the question but as the proceedings progressed, on a few more occasions, Lady Simler said she was finding it difficult to understand the logic behind why Imbert’s conduct did not form part of the investigation.
She, along with Lords Hodge, Sales, Stephens and Lady Rose, were hearing the appeal brought by Imbert and the Cabinet against the local Appeal Court granting leave to Ramdass to file a claim for judicial review against the setting up of an investigative team to probe the circumstances of the understatement.
Following about two hours of submissions from Mendes, the law lords briefly stood down the hearing.
When they returned a few minutes later, Lord Hodge announced the decision.
Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, who leads a team of attorneys on behalf of Ramdass, was not required to make any submissions in response to Mendes’ submissions.
Lord Hodge stated that in the board’s view, the local Appeal Court was correct in granting leave to Ramdass to file her claim.
He said given the importance of the matter to Trinidad and Tobago, the board felt it necessary to deliver its ruling immediately and would provide written reasons at a later date.
Given the ruling, there is now nothing standing in the way of Ramdass filing her claim.
Ramdass claims bias
The investigative team that is headed by retired High Court Justice David Harris was appointed by the Cabinet based on Imbert’s advice.
Imbert and the Cabinet were seeking to have the British law lords declare that the Court of Appeal had gotten it wrong when a three-judge panel comprising Justices Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and James Aboud granted leave to Ramdass in June to file her judicial review claim.
On the same day of the Appeal Court’s ruling, Imbert announced via a media release that he had instructed attorneys for the State led by Mendes to further appeal the matter at the Privy Council.
The local judges had ruled that High Court Justice Westmin James made an error in law when he refused at first instance to grant Ramdass permission to file the claim.
The Appeal Court had also ordered that the matter be remitted for hearing before another judge at the High Court.
Ramdass, through her legal team, argued that Imbert’s recommendation to Cabinet to initiate the probe, select the investigation team, set its terms of reference and have it report directly to him, were biased against her.
She also complained that the Harris team was mandated by Imbert and Cabinet to make findings on her conduct and that Imbert was responsible for the team’s remuneration.
Appearing alongside Ramlogan for Ramdass were attorneys Ganesh Saroop, Kent Samlal, Natasha Bisram and Aasha Ramlal, while Simon de la Bastide, SC, Jo-Anne Julien and Sonnel David-Longe appeared along with Mendes for Imbert and the Cabinet.
Background
The impasse over the $2.5 billion understatement first began in April this year after the Finance Ministry sought to deliver amended public accounts to the Auditor General to explain and rectify it.
Initially, the Government’s revenue was understated by the sum of $3.4 billion but later this figure was reduced by the ministry to $2.5 billion.
Because the statutory deadline to provide the financial records was January 31, Ramdass had refused to accept the amended public accounts when the ministry sought to deliver it to her office in April. She was given the first set of accounts for 2023 prior to the deadline date, which was audited, but not yet delivered at the time when the ministry sought to deliver the second set, that were allegedly backdated.
Even though Ramdass initially refused to accept the updated accounts, her office eventually did so after being issued a pre-action protocol letter. In her legal claim, Ramdass is contending that she felt bullied into accepting the amended accounts.
While the second set of accounts was audited, Ramdass stated that her audit team was unable to reconcile the increase in revenue reported by the ministry.
On May 7, Imbert announced the appointment of the investigative team to probe the understatement.
About a week later, Ramdass’ attorneys approached the High Court seeking permission to file judicial review against the decision to launch the probe against her. They argued before Justice James that neither Imbert nor the Cabinet had the powers to investigate the Office of the Auditor General.
The following month, however, the judge refused the application, stating that Ramdass’ claim would have an unrealistic prospect of success if it was allowed to proceed.
The judge said then that the Auditor General had failed to convince the court that Imbert was being biased towards her when it came to the appointment of the investigative team.