JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, March 15, 2025

Auditor General hits back at ‘malicious attack’; wants State to pay legal costs

by

Asha Javeed
318 days ago
20240501

Au­di­tor Gen­er­al Jai­wan­tee Ram­dass has is­sued a sec­ond pre-ac­tion let­ter, this time to At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Regi­nald Ar­mour.

She said yes­ter­day the at­tacks launched against her char­ac­ter by both the AG and Min­is­ter of Fi­nance Colm Im­bert, which she con­sid­ers “false, ma­li­cious, and mis­lead­ing,” leave her in doubt that the Gov­ern­ment could “fair­ly be per­mit­ted to se­lect coun­sel to rep­re­sent her”.

It was not­ed that the State has the sup­port of the AG and has re­tained three at­tor­neys, among them Dou­glas Mendes, SC, and Si­mon de la Bastide, to act on be­half of the Min­istry of Fi­nance.

How­ev­er, Ram­dass’ lawyers, not­ing she would have to hire in­de­pen­dent coun­sel to de­fend her­self, asked the AG if he would up­hold a com­mit­ment to pay­ing for that le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion in the mat­ter.

The let­ter came a day af­ter she al­so is­sued a pre-ac­tion let­ter to Im­bert, ask­ing him to re­tract false state­ments made about her in Par­lia­ment and to set the pub­lic record straight on the Hansard of Par­lia­ment.

On April 17, one day af­ter she re­ceived a pre-ac­tion let­ter from the Min­istry of Fi­nance over is­sues on the au­dit­ing of the Gov­ern­ment’s ac­counts, she wrote to Ar­mour seek­ing a le­gal opin­ion on Sec­tions 24 and 25 of the Ex­che­quer and Au­dit Act, Chap­ter 69:01.

How­ev­er, on April 19, Ar­mour re­spond­ed that he was al­ready ad­vis­ing the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance on the mat­ter.

“In the cir­cum­stances, it would be in­ap­pro­pri­ate for me to ren­der any ad­vice to you on this mat­ter. I rec­om­mend that, with ap­pro­pri­ate ur­gency, you should re­tain in­de­pen­dent le­gal coun­sel to give you such ad­vice. I give the un­der­tak­ing that, as At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, I am pre­pared to pay rea­son­able fees in­curred by you as Au­di­tor Gen­er­al for the re­ten­tion and ob­tain­ing of that in­de­pen­dent ad­vice,” Ar­mour’s let­ter stat­ed.

Five days lat­er, on April 24, Ram­dass com­plet­ed the 2023 ac­counts, which she sub­mit­ted to the Min­istry of Fi­nance.

How­ev­er, she qual­i­fied the re­port with a dis­claimer and an ad­den­dum on the ac­counts, which in­clude the fact that $780,499,791.27 of rev­enue could not be ac­count­ed for.

On Feb­ru­ary 26, Im­bert did not lay the re­port be­fore Par­lia­ment but in­stead sought an ex­ten­sion.

Ram­dass, a pub­lic ser­vant, re­tained for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, to rep­re­sent her and has is­sued two pre-ac­tion let­ters to the State.

The let­ter to Ar­mour yes­ter­day not­ed, “It would ob­vi­ous­ly be equal­ly in­ap­pro­pri­ate for you to ren­der any ad­vice to the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al on the oth­er is­sue(s) that have since arisen in this mat­ter. There would be a se­ri­ous con­flict of in­ter­est and a strong risk of po­lit­i­cal bias.

“Giv­en that you spear­head­ed the at­tack against our client in Par­lia­ment and made state­ments which she con­sid­ers to be false, ma­li­cious, and mis­lead­ing, it is ob­vi­ous that the Gov­ern­ment, through you, can­not fair­ly be per­mit­ted to se­lect coun­sel to rep­re­sent her. This would not on­ly be man­i­fest­ly un­fair and ir­ra­tional but would com­pro­mise the in­tegri­ty and in­de­pen­dence of the of­fice of the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al.

“Giv­en that the con­tentious mat­ters and dis­putes that have arisen be­tween the Gov­ern­ment and the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al, it is ob­vi­ous that it will be patent­ly un­fair to ask that the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al ei­ther re­tains in­de­pen­dent coun­sel of her choice at her per­son­al ex­pense or that the Gov­ern­ment through the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, se­lects and im­pos­es coun­sel of his choice and lik­ing (if not po­lit­i­cal pref­er­ence), to rep­re­sent the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al. The pos­si­bil­i­ty of po­lit­i­cal bias is ob­vi­ous.”

Con­tact­ed yes­ter­day, Ar­mour said he re­ferred Ram­dass’ let­ter to se­nior coun­sel for ad­vice.

Pre-Ac­tion let­ter to Ar­mour

In her le­gal let­ter to Ar­mour, by in­struct­ing at­tor­ney Aasha Ram­lal, Ram­dass again main­tained she was pro­vid­ed with two sets of pub­lic ac­counts from the Min­istry of Fi­nance, one of which was back­dat­ed and con­tained a sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er state­ment of rev­enue fig­ure.

Her mis­giv­ing came from a State­ment of De­c­la­ra­tion and Cer­ti­fi­ca­tion which opened with, “The fol­low­ing State­ments for the Fi­nan­cial Year 2023 which are statu­to­ri­ly due by Jan­u­ary 31, 2024, in ac­cor­dance with Sec­tion 24(1)(a) and (b) and 24 (2)(a) and (b) of the Ex­che­quer and Au­dit Act, Chap­ter 69:01 as amend­ed by Act No. 23 of 1998 are sub­mit­ted” and closed with “As Ac­count­ing Of­fi­cer, I cer­ti­fy that the Fi­nan­cial State­ments for the fi­nan­cial year end­ed Sep­tem­ber 30, 2023 have been rec­on­ciled with the records of the Trea­sury and in my opin­ion, these Fi­nan­cial State­ments fair­ly re­flect the fi­nan­cial po­si­tion of the Gov­ern­ment of the Re­pub­lic of Trinidad and To­ba­go for the year end­ed Sep­tem­ber 30, 2023.”

“Both the orig­i­nal and amend­ed state­ments were dat­ed and signed Jan­u­ary 31, 2024. This is de­spite the er­ror, which caused the amend­ment, be­ing dis­cov­ered long af­ter Jan­u­ary 31, 2024,” the let­ter said.

The let­ter not­ed that both the AG and the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance launched a scathing at­tack on Ram­dass’ char­ac­ter.

“The Au­di­tor Gen­er­al sees this as a po­lit­i­cal at­tack on the in­de­pen­dence and in­tegri­ty of her of­fice be­cause it con­cerns the per­for­mance of her con­sti­tu­tion­al and statu­to­ry du­ties. It was al­so an at­tempt to vil­i­fy and as­sas­si­nate her per­son­al and pro­fes­sion­al rep­u­ta­tion. The Au­di­tor Gen­er­al is an in­de­pen­dent of­fice un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion that was de­lib­er­ate­ly in­su­lat­ed from po­lit­i­cal in­ter­fer­ence, in­flu­ence, and con­trol.

“The Au­di­tor Gen­er­al is con­cerned to en­sure that the in­de­pen­dence and in­tegri­ty of the of­fice are not com­pro­mised by these un­war­rant­ed and un­jus­ti­fied po­lit­i­cal at­tacks. She wish­es to de­fend her of­fice and her­self against these ma­li­cious at­tacks and is there­fore en­ti­tled to be rep­re­sent­ed by a coun­sel­lor of her choice. As an in­de­pen­dent of­fice­hold­er un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion, the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al sits on par with the of­fice of the DPP, the Om­buds­man, and the Ser­vice Com­mis­sions, which are all sim­i­lar­ly pro­tect­ed from po­lit­i­cal in­flu­ence and con­trol,” the let­ter said.

What Ram­dass sought ad­vice on

The let­ter iden­ti­fied the ar­eas where Ram­dass sought le­gal ad­vice:

1) The le­gal va­lid­i­ty of the res­o­lu­tion passed by Par­lia­ment pur­port­ing to ex­tend the time for the sub­mis­sion of the na­tion­al ac­counts and her re­port in cir­cum­stances where she has al­ready sub­mit­ted her au­dit re­port to the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance;

2) The false and mis­lead­ing state­ments made in Par­lia­ment against her re­gard­ing the per­for­mance of her of­fi­cial du­ty;

3) Whether the cloak of par­lia­men­tary priv­i­lege could be pierced in the ex­cep­tion­al cir­cum­stances of this case such that Mr Regi­nald Ar­mour SC and Mr Colm Im­bert can be sued for de­fam­ing the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al;

4) Whether the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance act­ed law­ful­ly in re­fus­ing to lay the Re­port of the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al in Par­lia­ment when called up­on to do so by the Speak­er on Fri­day, April 26, 2024.

5) What op­tions and reme­dies in law may be open to the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al to have her re­port laid in Par­lia­ment and pro­tect the in­tegri­ty and in­de­pen­dence of her of­fice from the in­tru­sive po­lit­i­cal ten­ta­cles that have ap­peared;

6) The scope and re­mit of her rights un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion, the act, and the laws of T&T.

“We, there­fore, write to in­quire whether you would be pre­pared to pay rea­son­able le­gal fees that would nec­es­sar­i­ly be in­curred by the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al for le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion in this mat­ter in which we have been in­struct­ed.

“Giv­en the pow­er­ful bat­tery of lawyers ad­vis­ing the State, it would be tan­ta­mount to us­ing a le­gal sledge­ham­mer to bat­ter an ant of a pub­lic of­fi­cer in­to po­lit­i­cal sub­mis­sion,” the let­ter said.

AG’s of­fice re­sponds

Yes­ter­day, the AG’s Of­fice is­sued Ram­dass a re­sponse to the le­gal let­ter, not­ing that the mat­ter has been passed on to Se­nior Coun­sel for ad­vice.

“This re­sponse is not to be un­der­stood as ac­ced­ing to your re­quest,” the let­ter said.

In an im­me­di­ate re­sponse, Ram­dass’ at­tor­ney said, “We ex­press our dis­ap­point­ment and con­cern over the fact that you ne­glect­ed to in­di­cate when the sub­stan­tive is­sue re­gard­ing le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for our client will be ad­dressed. This is ex­treme­ly un­sat­is­fac­to­ry in light of the fact that state­ments by top gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials con­tin­ue to be wide­ly pub­li­cised in the me­dia. Our client can­not rea­son­ably be ex­pect­ed to idly sit by as a lame duck that is the sub­ject of tar­get prac­tice for politi­cians.”

For his part, Im­bert has an­nounced an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to the mat­ters raised by Ram­dass’ let­ter, even as the Par­lia­ment and Sen­ate agreed to ex­tend the time to present in­for­ma­tion on T&T’s 2023 ac­counts to the Au­di­tor Gen­er­al.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored