Laws set out and regulate the duties and responsibilities of people and direct the interaction between them. Laws are shaped by a given time and context and cannot cater to every situation. When circumstances change and reality exceeds the legal provisions, conflicts will result. When the conflict involves high officeholders, mature statesmanship and respectful engagement are required, not expensive legal gunfights funded by the public purse.
The flurry of pre-action protocol letters between the Attorney General, the Auditor General, and the Finance Minister has damaged the relationship between parties that ought never to fight. The announcement of a probe sanctioned by Cabinet in which the Acting Prime Minister and the Finance Minister are the same and its one-sided terms of reference raises questions for more discerning minds. Understandably, it elicited a response for injunctive relief by the Auditor General, thereby enlarging the dispute.
The furore has degenerated into a blame game, politicising issues that require a mature, rational approach. This myopic behaviour could erode confidence in the institutions that uphold our democracy and raise questions about the country’s creditworthiness with international lenders. The situation cries out for mature statesmanship and respectful engagement to provide sustainable solutions, thereby reducing the strain on public institutions and the public purse.
Politicians everywhere tend to avoid dealing with the real issue by resorting to blame, ad hominem personal attacks, obfuscation, and distraction. The problem that generated this impasse between the Finance Minister and the Auditor General is a material understatement in the revenue statement in the public accounts amounting to $3.4 billion. This “error” was only communicated to the Auditor General in late March. According to the letter dated May 15, written by the attorney representing the Finance Minister, $2.6 billion had been reconciled by April 5.
This letter notes that the understatement of revenue …” was due to posting errors, including double booking of transactions and decimal point transposition errors arising as a result of the new Electronic Cheque Clearing System at the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago as well as the Go Anywhere System, which replaced the presentation of physical cheques for reconciliation. This discovery in March, six months after the end of the financial year and two months after the January 31 submission deadline, implies substantial procedural and systemic flaws. This would raise red flags and doubts concerning the accuracy of the public accounts for any auditor.
Preparing the public accounts is the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. The Auditor General’s responsibility is to exercise the necessary skill and care in examining all books and records to express an opinion thereon. The office is a safeguard for the public interest, not a rubber stamp for the Finance Ministry or Cabinet. The Auditor General is a creature of statute and cannot form an opinion until a complete set of documents is presented, within the time limit. The cumulative effect of these errors, inadvertent or otherwise, on the Auditor General’s deliberations has been ignored in the minister’s attempt to ascribe blame. What did the AG’s protocol letter threaten that inflamed tensions?
The public accounts are one mechanism for executive accountability for the country’s revenue and expenditure. Therefore, the emphasis should be on the accuracy of the processes and systems that generate those numbers. Individual egos are of no importance in the scheme of things.