The Constitution sets out the legal framework within which society operates. It enshrines the rights of citizens and the powers and duties of the Executive, the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the independent institutions. The role of the Executive is to set the policy direction of the State and to effect those policies through its legislative agenda. The laws are debated, amended, or passed in the legislature or Parliament. The Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet and is responsible for the administration of all legal affairs (S76(2)).
The Judiciary is meant to be an independent body to uphold and interpret the law and prevent the abuse of power by any of the arms of the State. Independent bodies like the Auditor General act as a check and balance on the power of the Executive.
The Auditor General is a public office (S116 (1) appointed by the President S117(1) and holds office under S136 and the remuneration is a charge on the Consolidated Fund. S116 (2) requires the Auditor General to audit the public accounts of T&T and of all officers, courts, and authorities of T&T and all state enterprises annually, and for that purpose shall have access to all books, records, returns, and other documents relating to those accounts. The reports are to be submitted annually to the Speaker, the President of the Senate, and the Minister of Finance. When exercising these constitutional functions, the Auditor General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority. The Auditor General is not a rubber stamp.
The Auditor General is not beholden to the AG or the Cabinet and is not in their employ. The Constitution does not provide a dispute resolution mechanism if there is a conflict between the Executive and the Auditor General. It should be noted that the Auditor General is a creature of statute, and any compromise must be within the ambit of the governing legislation. The Auditor General must express an opinion on the figures presented, whether that opinion is good, bad, or qualified.
Accordingly, one would presume that mature individuals occupy these positions and that reasonable steps would be taken to resolve any dispute should one arise. Shouldn’t the public expect such differences to be resolved intelligently in the national interest above partisan personal consideration?
Since the AG is the legal adviser to the Cabinet, he does not act on his behalf and is a proxy for the Cabinet in the current public imbroglio with the Auditor General. This public spat is unprecedented in that the Executive issued a pre-action protocol letter to an independent arm of the State. This is as unprecedented as it is bizarre. Further, as a senior counsel and former head of the Law Association, the AG must have understood that issuing such a letter guaranteed a similar response.
Despite having a legal department at his disposal, the AG is hiring expensive external attorneys at taxpayers’ expense, which implies that the Auditor General’s legal expenses are a personal matter. At best, this is intimidation. The substantial systemic deficiencies implied by a $3.4 billion error in a cash accounting system are lost in the confusion. The public has received no assurance that these deficiencies have been corrected. What about the loss of credibility with international agencies that use these accounts and the consequences? Who is responsible?