AUDITOR General Jaiwantie Ramdass has gone ahead with her threat to take the Finance Minister and the Cabinet to court over a decision to appoint an investigation team to probe the $2.6 billion revenue understatement in the Auditor General’s report on the 2023 public financial accounts.

Her judicial review application was filed on May 16 and Justice Westmin James will hear preliminary arguments on Friday.

It comes after attorneys for Finance Minister and acting prime minister Colm Imbert said on May 15, that there would be no cancellation of the investigation headed by retired judge David Harris. They were responding to a pre-action protocol letter sent on May 12, by Ramdass’ attorneys.

In her application, Ramdass’ attorney Aasha Ramlal asked for an urgent hearing as the terms of reference of the Harris team carried the risk of interfering with the independence of the office of the Auditor General. The minister and the Cabinet were named as intended defendants while the Harris team was named as an interested party.

Ramdass is seeking several declarations relating to the appointment of the Harris team. It also seeks to have the decision quashed while in the interim, she wants an injunction restraining the Harris team from investigating anything related to the audit of the 2023 public accounts.

The application recounted the Auditor General's version of the events involving the imbroglio over the public accounts, dating back to January before the audit of the accounts and up to April when Ramdass was served with a pre-action protocol letter from the Office of the Attorney General in relation to her then refusal to accept the amended accounts, to the exchange of correspondence between the Auditor General’s department and the Ministry of Finance up to her submission of the report on April 24.

On April 26, Imbert did not lay the report in Parliament but a motion to extend the time to submit the report to was passed.

In a legal letter to Ramdass' attorneys on May 15, Imbert said he would forego legal action against Ramdass and lay the original report in Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

The application also referenced “attacks” on Ramdass in Parliament and outlined the contents of pre-action letters sent to Government by her legal team in the past weeks and a constitutional motion she filed on May 7, in which she alleged her rights under the Constitution were breached.

On May 15, attorney Jo-Anne Julien, of MG Daly and Co, responded to Ramdass’ pre-action indicating that the appointment of the Harris team did not contravene the independence of the Auditor General or section 136 of the Constitution because the team was not investigating if she should be removed from office nor will the team’s findings be binding on the President.

The judicial review application contends the Office of the Auditor General was insulated from political influence, interference and control and the terms of reference were capable of encompassing the Auditor General’s action and conduct in the performance of her duties.