Miscalculations

TWO WEEKS after Carnival, with a general election looming, civil servants at the Ministry of Finance made a startling discovery.

An “error” in statistics submitted by the Treasury to the Auditor General in January was detected. Revenue for 2023 had been understated by $2.6 billion.

This massive mistake was attributed, by government officials, to complications from a new clearing system at the Central Bank.

At the same time, Finance Minister Colm Imbert has said the preparation of public accounts is an enormous undertaking and “errors may be made along the way.”

However, $2.6 billion is no typo – the scale of what went wrong is alarming.

But if one error was made in the books, a litany of errors by the minister of finance, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, and Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass has now compounded it.

The Treasury, under section 24(1)(a) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, has a duty to transmit to the Auditor General, accounts showing fully the country’s finances. Submission of false data is arguably a serious breach.

Imbert, responding to claims earlier this week by Ramdass, has only now called for “a full independent investigation.”

Such a probe was merited from the moment he was informed of the Treasury’s misadventure and arguably also before he took to the Parliament floor to apprise the nation.

In fact, on April 26, the minister praised civil servants who made the error, saying they had shown “courage” in reporting it.

Nobody has said why, if the variance was discovered in the week of February 26, a meeting occurred with the Auditor General’s team only on March 27.

Ms Ramdass, too, has some accounting to do.

This is especially so if the claims made in Parliament of her not replying to messages, letters, phone calls and e-mails are true.

Additionally, her decision to retain a law firm that has ties to a political figure raises questions about her judgement.

While we do not know the circumstances in which that decision was made and whether cost was a factor, the independence of her office demands better.

But her decision to retain private lawyers was necessitated only by Mr Armour’s role in this sorry affair.

While section 10(1)(f) of the act states the Auditor General can ask the Attorney General to advise her on any question of law, he blanked an approach from her, saying he was conflicted since he had already advised Imbert.

Are there no others in the AG’s office?

All this bacchanal has damaged confidence in official statistics and systems of oversight.

Audits can be qualified, but these collective miscalculations might never be remedied.