THE COURT of Appeal has stopped the investigation of the Auditor General by a team handpicked by the government.
On Friday June 21, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and James Aboud unanimously upheld Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass’s appeal of the High Court’s refusal to allow her to challenge the legality of the decision to appoint the team, led by retired judge David Harris.
The judges held that Justice Westmin James erred in refusing Ramdass leave to pursue her judicial review claim on June 3.
Ramdass was granted leave and her lawsuit will be heard by another judge in the High Court. A written ruling is expected to be delivered next week.
Speaking at the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain, Ramdass said she was “relieved” and has trust in the judicial process. In its ruling, the Appeal Court disagreed with James’s assessment of Ramdass’s apparent bias argument.
Ramdass has complained that Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s recommendation to Cabinet to initiate the probe, select the investigation team, set its terms of reference and have it report directly to him, 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.
The Appeal Court held she had raised an arguable point.
PROBE INTO
Its ruling effectively stops the Harris team from any investigation involving the Auditor General over the 2023 national accounts until her lawsuit goes to trial.
However, the team can still pursue aspects of the probe on the $2.6 billion understatement in the Auditor General’s report on the 2023 public accounts that do not involve Ramdass and her office.
Harris’s team was expected to report to the Finance Minister by July 7.
The Appeal Court also made it clear its findings were only on the issue of arguability and not a determination of Ramdass’s challenge. Rajkumar delivered the summary opinion of the court. He said the Law Association case involving the Chief Justice, which the State relied on, was distinguishable from the Auditor General’s challenge, since in that case, the Privy Council did not have to directly address the issue of apparent bias.
In that case, the Privy Council ruled that the association’s probe was lawful, although the Constitution prescribes a specific process for probing and disciplining judges.
The State had suggested the findings in the case directly applied to Ramdass.
Rajkumar said while section 136 of the Consitition did not provide the only mechanism for an investigation into the office of the Auditor General, it was precluded in this case because “it amounts to a statutorily impermissible trespass by the Executive with no statutory or specific constitutional basis.”
He added that matters which affect the performance of the independent office of the Auditor General in the exercise of her duties are constitutionally recognised and insulated by sections 116 and 136 of the Constitution.
However, he said it was not necessary for the Appeal Court, at this stage, to det
