Finance Minister Colm Imbert has indicated through his attorneys that he will be forgoing, for the time being, any legal proceedings to challenge the Auditor General’s decision to prematurely submit the 2023 Auditor General’s Report.
MG Daly and Partners, representatives for Minister Imbert, issued a 19-page response to Freedom Law Chambers’ attorney Aasha Ramlal yesterday, who on April 28 had sent legal letters to both Imbert and Attorney General Reginald Armour, taking issue with “false” statements they made against Ramdass in the Parliament.
This included that she did not consider amended accounts submitted to her that contained a multibillion-dollar error in preparation of the country’s 2023 audited financial accounts.
Imbert’s attorneys also took issue with the content of the legal letter issued on Ramdass’ behalf, saying that her statements were incorrect and that there were delays on her part in accepting the amended accounts.
The letter stated that Imbert intends to lay the Auditor General’s special report in the Parliament.
“As noted, the Minister intends to lay the Auditor General’s Report in Parliament within 30 days of the receipt of same, or as catered for in the standing orders and as is prescribed, at the next sitting of the House of Representatives that is closest to that date, in accordance with his statutory duty.
“The Minister has decided to do so despite the legal flaws identified in the Auditor General’s decision to submit the Auditor General’s Report to the said Officials when she did, and having regard to the Auditor General’s expressed willingness to consider a special report under section 25(4) of the Exchequer and Audit Act and the understanding and expectation that the special report will be submitted by the Auditor General to the Parliament and the Minister no later than August 31, 2024,” the letter stated.
It added, “As such the Minister will be foregoing for the time being any legal proceedings to challenge the Auditor General’s decision to prematurely submit the Auditor General’s Report. The next step therefore will be a response to the Management Letter along with a request for a special report pursuant to section 25(4) of the Act.”
The letter noted that after the Finance Ministry discovered the error of understated revenue during the period April 9-15, 2024, the ministry experienced difficulties in submitting those amended collated public accounts to the Auditor General.
It was only after a pre-action letter dated April 15, 2024, was issued to the Auditor General, on behalf of the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, warning her that proceedings would be instituted against her if she failed to receive and consider the Amended Public Accounts, that she eventually agreed to receive the amended accounts, according to the letter.
The attorneys stated that the Auditor General’s initial refusal to accept the Amended Public Accounts delayed her consideration of those accounts for what was a significant period of time, given the statutory deadline of April 30, 2024, for the submission of her report.
The letter stated that the Auditor General’s initial refusal to accept the amended accounts raised concerns that whether intentionally or not, the Ministry of Finance was denied a reasonable and timely opportunity to correct or explain the error made in the Original Treasury Statements and to verify the increase in revenue resulting from the correction of that error before the Auditor General’s Report was submitted to the Speaker and the President.
The letter stated that the Auditor General’s refusal to receive and consider the Amended Public Accounts prior to April 15, 2024, was “unlawful and irrational”.
And further, that Ramdass’ allegations that amended accounts were backdated was “patently false…as there is no factual basis for that allegation and indeed the allegation is inconsistent with the facts surrounding the submission of the 12th April Accounts and the Amended Public Accounts,” stated the letter.
The attorney said that as already stated, a copy of the Statement of Declaration and Certification, dated January 31, 2024, included in the Original Treasury Statements, was inadvertently included in the April 12, 2024 Accounts.
“But the fact that the Statement of Declaration dated 31st January 2024 was included in those accounts in error and not in an attempt to backdate same, is demonstrated by the fact that the Exchequer Account and Statement of Receipts and Disbursements also included in those same accounts, were (in accordance with usual practice) also each endorsed with their own certification clauses.
“Those clauses were signed and dated 8th April 2024 and 5th April 2024, respectively. If there was an intention to backdate the 12th April Accounts, then one would expect the Exchequer Account and the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements included in those accounts to also be dated 31st January 2024, but they were not,” the letter stated.
The attorneys noted that Ramdass’ legal letter stated that she completed the Auditor General’s Report on April 24, 2024, and delivered it to the Speaker and the President.
They noted that she failed to mention that on the same day the Auditor General caused the Management Letter to be delivered to the Ministry of Finance and in that letter, amongst other things, she referred to certain errors in the Amended Public Accounts, noted that certain documents should have been provided to her, requested an explanation as to whether the figure of $780,499,719.27 had been reconciled or needed to be reconciled, and finally, requested that the Ministry let the Auditor General Department have written comments on the findings, observations, and recommendations contained in the Management Letter.
The letter also stated that historically, there is the practice where the Office of the Auditor General holds an exit interview with the ministry’s staff before submitting his report, but this was not done.
It noted the deadline for the Auditor General to submit her report was April 30, 2024.
The attorney stated there is no good reason why after issuing the Management Letter, the Auditor General could not have delayed submission of the Auditor General’s Report, so as to give the ministry an opportunity to either address the matters raised.
The letter stated further that if this was done and if the ministry’s officials felt that they needed more time to respond, Parliament could then have been moved to extend time for the submission of the report.
“Instead, the Auditor General’s hasty and premature submission of the Auditor General’s Report to the Speaker and the President deprived the Auditor General’s colleagues of any reasonable opportunity to address her concerns,” stated the letter.
(Express)