Former minister in the Ministry of Finance, Mariano Browne, says the dispute between Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass and Finance Minister Colm Imbert should not have escalated to the point of issuing pre-action protocol letters.
Speaking to Guardian Media yesterday, Browne also said the Auditor General’s judgement in using a legal firm, which can be presumed to be a mouthpiece for the Opposition, was not the wisest thing to do.
Ramdass is being represented by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, head of Freedom Law Chambers.
Browne, who is also an accountant, said what he gathered, the pre-action protocol letter first written by the ministry to the Auditor General was to, in a sense, force her to accept the financial statements.
“I do not know if that is the best way to achieve it or to have done it. It is what it is, and it has happened. When a pre-action letter is sent, it means you have to respond to it. If you fail to respond to it, by court rules, then by definition, anything that is said in the letter is therefore true. So we find ourselves in my pre-action letter and your pre-action letter,” he explained.
Browne noted that there is a time limit to submit such reports.
“It’s clear the Auditor General attempted to reconcile the situation, according to her letter, by bringing a team together and auditing numbers, but couldn’t verify the additional $3.4 billion in revenue, but the minister spoke about a $2.6 billion error. Which one is it? There are difficulties in this situation.”
He indicated that this is not a small error, as it is between three and five per cent of the total revenue position.
“In these circumstances, there is a need for care. So who was careless? And how is the matter going to be resolved?” he said.
Browne asked if there was an error in the soft system that generated the figures, why did it take so long for the mistake to be detected.
“Someone should have checked it to ensure that the figures made sense.”
Asked whether the mid-year budget review, which is expected in early May, would be affected due to the ongoing disagreement, Browne said no.
“The mid-year review is a review of the current finances. This has nothing to do with the certification of the previous year’s financials. Similarly, payments of current-year obligations are done by the appropriation bill for the current year. The matter with the auditor general does not impact current-year operations,” he added.