AUDITOR General Jaiwantie Ramdass will have to wait a little longer to know if she will be allowed to challenge an investigation into her response relating to the recent impasse between her office and the Ministry of Finance over the 2023 public accounts.
On June 17, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, James Aboud and Peter Rajkumar reserved their ruling in Ramdass’s appeal of a judge’s refusal to grant her leave to challenge the ministry and the Cabinet over the decision to appoint an investigation team.
Although the judges said they would deliberate with urgency, they could not give a definitive date for their decision, saying only that it would not be indefinite.
“It is self-evident this is a matter of considerable public importance,” Mohammed said.
In response to enquiries from the judges on the deadline for the probe, led by retired judge David Harris, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes said while he had no instructions on the issue of a stay, he would pass on the court’s expectations.
However, he said if the investigative team could not carry out its investigations relating to the Auditor General and her office, then the report “would be delayed anyway.”
Harris’s team was expected to report to the Finance Minister by July 7.
It can continue its investigations into the other aspects surrounding the $2.6 billion understatement in the Auditor General report on the 2023 public accounts that do not involve Ramdass until the Appeal Court gives its decision.
On June 3, Justice Westmin James refused Ramdass leave to pursue her judicial review claim.
This cleared the way for the Harris team to continue its Cabinet-ordered probe. Harris, a retired judge, and former audit director David Benjamin and a third, unnamed member of the team were appointed in early May.
James held the investigation did not amount to an unjustified interference with the independence of the Auditor General’s office.
In submissions on June 17, Ramdass’s attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, said the “biased investigation” should not be permitted.
He also questioned why one member of the team was yet to be identified.
“A biased investigation cannot be permitted in law.
"This is not about a statutory duty to investigate. The Minister of Finance has no such power. I am not concerned about him investigating the ministry or himself, but the investigation of the Auditor General.”
Ramlogan also raised the issue of bias, saying as an independent office-holder, the Auditor General had come under attack by the minister, who recommended the investigators and determined their pay and terms of reference.
He referred to statements by Finance Minister Colm Imbert and the Attorney General in Parliament on Ramdass’s alleged conduct.
“Why are they (the Harris team) reporting to the minister?
“This case is dangerous, very dangerous. It could be the Auditor General today, tomorrow the DPP and then judges.”
He said there was no law, either statute or the Constitution, that gave the minister general control over the Auditor General.
“If they
