Auditor General back in court over legal fees dispute
Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass. – File photo by Jeff K Mayers
ATTORNEYS for Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass are expected to make an application for recent statements made by Finance Minister Colm Imbert in Parliament.
Imbert laid the special report of the auditor general on the public accounts for the financial year 2023 earlier this week.
Ramdass’s lead attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, signalled the intention to make the application at a hearing before Justice Westmin James on September 11.
James is presiding over Ramdass’s lawsuit after the Cabinet appointed a team, led by retired judge David Harris, to probe the ongoing impasse between the Auditor General and the Ministry of Finance.
James will begin hearing evidential objections on January 13. He was also told on November 8, the Privy Council will hear the minister’s appeal of a preliminary aspect of Ramdass’s challenge over the appointment of the Harris team.
Senior Counsel Russell Martineau, who leads a team of attorneys for the State, suggested James deal with the evidential objections before cross-examination “until we know what the evidence is.”
His suggestion came after the judge expressed concerns over litigating the impasse given the extensive evidence filed so far on the legal fees issue.
“I am slightly concerned I am going to be doing what the investigation was to do.”
However, Ramlogan said the court had to consider the totality of the evidence “to be informed what has taken place between the parties” in determining the issue of whether the Attorney General is responsible for paying Ramdass’s legal fees and whether her request was reasonable.
In her lawsuit, Ramdass complained that Imbert’s recommendation to Cabinet to initiate the probe, appoint an investigative team to investigate, make findings and recommendations, and report to the Finance Minister, was biased. She also complained that the Harris team was mandated to make findings on her conduct and that Imbert was responsible for their remuneration.
On June 21, the Court of Appeal granted Ramdass leave, stopped the investigation of the Auditor General and ordered that her lawsuit will be heard by another judge in the High Court.
Imbert then appealed.
The dispute between the Auditor General and the minister arose in April after the ministry sought to deliver amended public accounts to explain and rectify an error in which the government’s revenue was understated.
Ramdass initially refused receipt, as she claimed she needed legal advice on whether she could accept them after the statutory deadline for submission. Ramdass eventually accepted the records and dispatched audit staff to verify them. She then submitted her original annual report, which was based on the original records, to Parliament.
Ramdass claimed her audit team was unable to reconcile the amended records based on documents it audited. She also contended the amended records appeared to be backdated to the original statutory deadline date in January. Ramdass also took issue with the fact that the discrepancy was initially estimated at $3.4 billion.
Imbert’s attorneys claimed the reconciliation after the initial estimate revealed that the variance was, in fact, $2,599,278,188.72, which was attributed to Value Added Tax (VAT), Individual, Business Levy and Green Fund Levy contributions.
The original, unamended version of the Public Accounts and the accompanying Auditor General’s report were laid in the House of Representatives on May 25.
The special report was laid in Parliament on September 9. It was prepared after an overstatement of tax refunds and a subsequent under-reporting of net revenue led to a $2.6 billion discrepancy in the revenue figures for 2023.
Imbert told the Parliament the purpose of the special report was to clear up statements of an attempt to backdate the 2023 accounts, but it did not do so.
Also representing Ramdass are Jared Jagroo, Natash Bisram, and Aasha Ramlal. Also appearing for the AG are Vanessa Gopaul, Chelvi Ramkisson, Anala Mohan and Chantal Cunningham.