Senior Political Reporter
Opposition PNM MP and former Energy minister and prime minister, Stuart Young, yesterday called on Government to clarify if the State is paying for reimbursement of the Auditor General’s fees from the Privy Council matter against former Finance minister Colm Imbert.
This, after Finance Minister Dave Tancoo confirmed that $2m in additional funds was allocated to the Auditor General’s Department as fees “to meet the cost of reimbursement stemming from the judgment in favour of the Auditor General versus the former Minister.”
“It’s not usual for the State to pay for reimbursement of fees in that manner,” Young seeking clarification on the issue during yesterday’s Standing Finance Committee meeting in Parliament.
“Is it now the State is paying the fees of the individual? Reimbursing an individual? That would be quite improper,” he added.
Tancoo had detailed supplemental allocation of a total of $4,982,000 for the Auditor General’s Department. He said this was due to payment of arrears of salary owed to holders of public offices arising from implementation of the Salaries Review Commissions’ 120th report as well as expenses under goods and services “... such as an unprecedented multi -million-dollar legal bill due to the recklessness of the former Finance Minister.”
Young noted that under “Fees” there was an increase of $2m and that was listed as pertaining to the Auditor General’s Privy Council appeal in the 2024 matter with former Finance minister Imbert. Young sought particulars to understand how it came up to $2m.
“If this is a payment of fees from that matter, shouldn’t those fees be paid from the Office of the Attorney General? How are those fees now being paid out of the Auditor General?” Young added.
Tancoo said he’d consider providing such information. Young asked if the $2m was payment of fees or payment of costs, as costs that would have been awarded for the action, should be paid by the Attorney General’s Office.
“I can’t see how the office of Auditor General would be paying the fees of the individual involved who was then in litigation with the then Finance minister, is it her fees being paid?” Young asked.
“The public service and the office of the Auditor General cannot pay the fees for the Auditor General. I understand if as you said, it is as the result of being successful in litigation in the Privy Council, costs have been awarded and costs total $2m, which is why I asked for a breakdown.”
“If costs were awarded there’d be a process for taxation or maybe there’s been an agreement as to the cost, but then it would be costs awarded and that should be paid by the Office of the Attorney General. It’s not usual - I’m not sure if it’s proper - for the Auditor General, for those fees to be paid by the state.”
Tancoo said the explanatory notes to the allocation stated the $2m was fees “to meet the cost of reimbursement stemming from the judgement in favour of the Auditor General versus the former Minister.”
Young added, “But it’s not usual for the state to pay for reimbursement of fees in that manner. If fees are incurred - and it’s for the Auditor General to pay- there should have been an agreement by the Attorney General at the time and my recollection at the time is the Attorney General at the time had refused to pay the fees of the Auditor General. So, it was incumbent on the individual to cover the fees. So, is it now the State is paying the fees of the individual? Reimbursing an individual? That would be quite improper, I’m seeking clarification.”
Tancoo replied, “Asked and answered.”
“Actually, it’s not,” Young added.
When SFC chairman Jagdeo Singh alluded to litigation he knew of concerning a consent order, PNM MP Colm Imbert said Singh wasn’t supposed to intervene to clarify anything the Government said or offer advice .Tancoo said Young could get more information via filing questions in Parliament. Young said, "The population needs to know - $2m in fees, what are the particulars, who are those fees being paid to?”
“More corruption” to be revealed — Padarath
Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister Barry Padarath clashed with several PNM MPs who grilled him on the supplemental allocation of $128, 403, 880 for the OPM.
Padarath said, “It’s clear the former Government crashed the economy, we’re now seeing in concrete evidence, high levels of incompetence, I assure you, from the information available to us - having had it been hidden by the former administration - massive amounts of corruption have been unearthed and will be shared with the population.”
Take charge of proceedings, Mr chairman — Gonzales
Yesterday’s Standing Finance Committee (SFC) deliberations were so stormy with “heat” from Government, rebuttals from the Opposition and crosstalk, that at one point, SFC chairman Jagdeo Singh urged all to “proceed in a civilised manner and stop hurling insults at each other.”
When United National Congress Government MPs berated the Opposition People's National Movement MPs for asking queries because they should have known of the issues during their tenure, PNM whip and former Public Utilities minister Marvin Gonzales repeatedly explained that Opposition MPs were seeking replies for the public’s information.
After OPM Minister Barry Padarath rebuffed yet another query with “barbs,” Gonzales told Singh, "Chairman, our responsibility is to ask questions and we’re asking those in alignment with the Standing Orders. Why is the Honourable Minister allowed to be so insultive to the Opposition members, behaving in the most scandalous way.
“I’m asking you to please take charge of these proceedings. I’m just simply asking you that because we’re asking legitimate questions in alignment with our Standing Orders and we’re being responded to with insulting language, Mr Chair - it’s just simply wrong.”