Government drops probe into Auditor General’s conduct

GOVERNMENT has discontinued its investigation into the Auditor General’s role in the revenue understatement of the public accounts for the 2023 financial year, following a ruling from the Privy Council and the completion of an independent inquiry.

The decision was announced in a statement from the Office of the Attorney General on February 28.

It also revealed the Cabinet-appointed investigative committee, led by former High Court judge David Harris, submitted its final report. It did not say when the report was submitted.

“The investigation team has provided its final report with respect to the permitted terms of reference, which helpfully discloses what went wrong and satisfactorily explained the understatement.

“The Cabinet, having since commenced consideration of the investigative committee findings, is satisfied that its report has adequately identified the contributing factors to the revenue understatement and provided recommendations to strengthen financial oversight and, will be receiving from the Minister of Finance a (cabinet) note with suggestions and recommendations.

“Given these developments, the Cabinet has determined that the continuation of proceedings in CV2024 – 01720 Jaiwantie Ramdass v Minister of Finance and The Cabinet of The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago will not further inform the issues already addressed by the investigative committee’s findings, while incurring further legal costs and judicial time while these proceedings are ongoing.

“Accordingly, the Cabinet has taken the decision not to proceed further with the terms of reference referred to above pertaining to the Auditor General.”

The team had been prevented by an order of the court from continuing its probe into the Auditor General’s role although it was permitted to continue its work, focusing on the other aspects of its mandate.

In an immediate response, Ramdass’s attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, said, "We are pleased that the Government has finally capitulated in this matter.

"Ms Ramdass stands tall and proud as an example to all independent public officers. We will carefully assess the terms of the Government’s concession in this matter to determine whether it amounts to appropriate vindication to her rights.

"Whilst this addresses her claim for judicial review, it does not address her other claim for the breach of her constitutional rights and we, therefore, anxiously await the Government’s position in respect of that matter in which Ms Ramdass claimed she was a victim of bullying, intimidation and harassment.

"She sought a declaration that her fundamental right to protection of the law was violated and damages. We are interested to know whether the Government will also defend that matter all the way to the Privy Council or whether this concession equally applies to her constitutional claim.

"Given that both cases are still before the courts, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on these matters. We, however, congratulate Ms Ramdass on her resounding legal victory and are pleased to be of service to her in her journey for justice."

In November and again in January, the Privy Council sharply criticised Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s decision to appeal a ruling that allowed Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass to pursue her legal challenge against the investigation into her handling of the 2023 public accounts.

In a strongly worded decision, the Privy Council questioned the necessity of the appeal and emphasised that the allegations of unlawful conduct made by Ramdass deserved a full judicial review. “It is unfortunate that the so-called knockout blow relied on by the minister has not only led to extensive argument in the domestic courts but also to this second appeal,” the court said. “It might have been thought preferable for this case to go forward to a full judicial review hearing so that the serious allegations of unlawful conduct made by the respondent could be fully investigated, considered and determined on their merits.”

In her lawsuit, Ramdass alleged that the probe violated constitutional protections that safeguard her independence as Auditor General. She contended that the investigation, which stemmed from her refusal to accept amended accounts submitted after the statutory deadline, was an attempt to undermine her office.

The dispute over the 2023 public accounts arose after what was initially reported as an understated government revenue figure of $3.4 billion, later revised to $2.6 billion. Ramdass refused to accept the amended accounts, arguing her audit of the original submission was complete. The Cabinet subsequently appointed Harris and his team on May 7, 2024.

The team was ordered to probe the understatement, look into Ramdass’ response to the second accounts, her audit report statements, and any related matters, while making findings and recommendations.