Auditor General wants to use Imbert’s comments to help her case

Lawyers representing embattled Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass are seeking to rely on recent statements made by Finance Minister Colm Imbert about her handling of a $2.6 billion underestimation of revenue in the national accounts.

Ramdass’ lawyer Anand Ramlogan, SC, referenced the statements made by Imbert in Parliament, earlier this week, as his client’s case over her ability to seek independent legal advice on the impasse between her office and Imbert’s ministry came up for hearing before Justice Westmin James, yesterday afternoon.

Ramdass also has a pending judicial review case over a Cabinet appointed probe led by retired judge David Harris, which was initiated after the debacle began earlier this year when Ramdass highlighted the financial discrepancy in her annual report.

Justice James refused Ramdass leave to pursue her case but his decision was subsequently overturned by the Appeal Court.

The Cabinet lodged a final appeal over the preliminary issue which is expected to be heard by the United Kingdom-based Privy Council in early November.

During yesterday’s hearing, there was a difference of opinion between Ramlogan and Senior Counsel Russell Martineau, who led the legal team for the AG’s Office, over the relevance of Imbert’s most recent comments.

In laying a special report from Ramdass in Parliament on Monday, Imbert said: “It is the Government’s view that the Special Report of the Auditor General on the Public accounts for the Financial Year 2023 only adds fuel to the fire, creates more unnecessary public confusion and does not satisfactorily address the core issue that arose with the Auditor General’s original report on the 2023 Accounts, which is a $2.6 billion discrepancy in revenue, and which, in our view, has been comprehensively cleared up.”

Justice James also questioned the move but eventually advised Ramlogan to file an official application over the use of the statements, which will be considered before the case goes to trial.

During the hearing, Justice James also expressed reservations over the legal representation case as he noted that he was concerned that he may have to weigh in on issues being considered by the probe, which is being separately challenged.

“I will have to comment on whether the circumstances require such a thing. I want to be careful because I do not want things that I say and findings that I have made to affect other things,” Justice James said.

Seeking to allay Justice James’ concerns, Ramlogan noted that he was simply asked to determine whether there were sufficient grounds for Ramdass to request independent legal representation.

“If you find that the Auditor General acted unreasonably then that would be the end of the case,” Ramlogan said.

Justice James gave the parties deadlines for the filing of evidence and submissions and adjourned the case to January 13, when he is expected to resolve evidential objections.

The dispute between Ramdass and ministry officials arose in April after the ministry sought to deliver amended public accounts, which were meant to explain a reported $2.6 billion underestimation in revenue.

In laying the special report in Parliament, Imbert opposed comments made by Ramdass in a recent affidavit, in which she claimed that her ability to perform a proper audit and verify the issues that caused the error was hampered as she was allegedly blocked by the Central Bank from accessing its electronic cheque clearing system.

The post Auditor General wants to use Imbert’s comments to help her case first appeared on CNC3.