Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A legal dispute over whether embattled Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass can retain State-funded independent legal counsel in relation to her now-controversial annual report will have to be determined by the courts.
On Tuesday, Ramdass’ lawyers, led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, of Freedom Law Chambers, filed a lawsuit over the issue, after the Cabinet appointed a team led by retired High Court Judge David Harris to probe the ongoing fiasco between Ramdass and the Ministry of Finance.
Speaking at a media conference yesterday, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, denied ever reneging on his commitment to pay for reasonable legal fees for independent advice sought by Ramdass on her ability to accept amended financial records from the ministry.
Armour said, “I was expressly clear throughout regarding my willingness to pay the reasonable legal costs as it relates to the retention of counsel for the advice sought by the Auditor General. The reports that there was a refusal on my part to do so is erroneous, or worse, is intended deliberately to mislead.”
Armour declined to comment further on Ramdass’ now pending case.
However, a senior legal source said Armour’s position on the issue did not render Ramdass’ lawsuit academic, as it (the lawsuit) also deals with alleged breaches of her constitutional rights and with developments in the debacle which arose subsequent to her request to Armour, including the appointment of the investigative team.
In the court filings, obtained by Guardian Media, attorney Aasha Ramlal claimed the dispute between the parties arose in March while Ramdass and staff at her department were preparing the report to be submitted to Finance Minister Colm Imbert at the end of April.
She claimed that on March 25, the ministry’s permanent secretary contacted Ramdass and told her there was a material misstatement in the revenue statement submitted in January. Three days later, the permanent secretary requested that Ramdass facilitate an amendment to the previous statement, as the variance was estimated at almost $3.4 billion. At the time, the ministry claimed it had reconciled an amount to the value of $2.59 billion.
Ramlal alleged that almost a week later, Ramdass received a telephone call from Imbert over the discrepancy. She claimed that Ramdass was concerned by the alleged approach, which she considered to be unusual, as she would normally liaise with senior public servants and not Government Ministers.
“The tone and attitude of the minister made her very uncomfortable. She felt intimidated and extremely worried,” Ramlal said.
However, she noted that it was not the first time that Imbert allegedly approached Ramdass about her official duties.
HSF report request
Ramlal claimed that Imbert had also contacted Ramdass after she submitted her report on the financial statements of the Heritage and Stabilisation Fund for the year ending September 2023, which was submitted two weeks after she was appointed by President Christine Kangaloo in November last year.
In that report, Ramdass flagged a US$182 million deposit made in December 2022 to the sovereign wealth fund, which collects the country’s surplus petroleum revenue.
Ramdass claimed that the deposit breached the legislation which created the fund.
“The claimant found the minister’s tone and attitude to be arrogant and threatening and she felt as if he was trying to bully and intimidate her into changing her report,” Ramlal said.
Returning to the current controversial report, Ramlal referred to correspondence allegedly sent by Imbert to Ramdass two weeks after the first correspondence (on March 25), in which he sought to explain why the issue was due to actual excess revenue only being known when accounts were closed off in January.
Ramdass eventually refused to make the suggested change.
Amended public accounts
On April 5, the ministry’s permanent secretary issued another memorandum in which it was stated that the variance was found to be approximately $2.6 billion based on the reconciliation process.
The ministry requested time to complete the process in relation to a remaining balance of $780.5 million.
Three days later, another correspondence was sent which did not mention the balance.
“Given the magnitude of the alleged error in the national accounts, the shifting of the financial goal post to the lower revenue figure and the significant amount of revenue that could not be accounted for, the claimant was very concerned about these unexpected and unprecedented developments,” Ramlal said.
Ramlal claimed that Ramdass was reluctant to accept the amended statement from the ministry as her department’s audit had already been completed.
She also noted that the amended statement was backdated to January to make it appear that it was submitted within the statutory deadline.
On April 15, Ramdass received a pre-action protocol letter from the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Legal Affairs, threatening legal action if she did not accept the amended documents.
On the same day, the senior legal officer assigned to Ramdass’ office wrote to the ministry advising it to withdraw and resubmit the public accounts statements.
On April 17, Ramdass wrote to Armour seeking advice on whether she could lawfully consider the amended statements. While awaiting a response, Ramdass accepted the records and appointed a team to audit them.
“The Ministry of Finance was unable to produce the relevant financial records and supporting documentary evidence to verify and substantiate this alleged increase in the Government’s revenue,” Ramlal said in the legal letter.
On April 19, Armour responded and claimed he could not render any legal advice based on the previous legal threat made by his office. However, Armour said his office would be willing to pay reasonable fees incurred by Ramdass in seeking independent legal advice on it.
Ramdass’ department eventually submitted its report on April 24.
The report was expected to be laid in Parliament two days later but Imbert declined to do so based on the dispute over the amended statements.
Armour also commented on the issue.
The deadline for submission of the report was then extended via a Parliamentary vote.
“The claimant considered that her office was under attack and her integrity and character was being called into question,” Ramlal said, as she claimed Ramdass had to retain attorneys to defend her professional reputation.
Ramlal claimed the lawsuit was threatened after Armour only agreed to cover the cost of legal advice initially sought by her and not other developments since then.
“There is no provision in the budget for the Office of the Auditor General to meet such legal expenses, and hence the claimant is distressed about her financial risk exposure and the financial implications that may arise,” Ramlal said.
Through the lawsuit, Ramdass is seeking a declaration that her constitutional right to protection of the law was breached.
She is also seeking declarations that the AG’s Office should bear the costs for her legal representation.