THE Finance Minister and the Cabinet have applied for conditional leave to take to the Privy Council its complaint of the Appeal Court’s decision in the Auditor General’s appeal of an investigation of her office by a team hand-picked by the government.
The application was filed on June 24 and will be heard on June 28.
In support of the application, attorney Sonnel David-Longe, one of the instructing attorneys for the minister and the Cabinet, said the understatement in the original public accounts for 2023 and the Auditor General’s disclaimer were “clearly matters of grave national concern given their obvious potential to create uncertainty about the country’s economy, to undermine the economic reputation of the country internationally, and to have other adverse effects on the economy.”
She said, “To avoid similar understatements in future public accounts, and similar disclaimers in future reports prepared by the Auditor General on such accounts, it was important that the investigation team be allowed to complete the investigation and report its findings and recommendations to Cabinet as soon as possible.
“Cabinet needs to have these findings and recommendations made available to it as a matter of urgency if such findings/recommendations are to be used to assist in the preparation and audit of the public accounts for the financial year 2024 to be submitted on or before the statutory deadline January 31, 2025, and to avoid understatements or errors being made in those public accounts and to avoid a disclaimer
in the Auditor General’s report on those accounts.”
On 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 permit her to challenge the lawfulness of the Cabinet's decision to appoint the team, led by retired judge David Harris. Their written decision was delivered on June 25.
Their ruling put a stop to the Harris team investigating her office.
Ramdass had 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.
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 was still permitted to 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 dispute arose in April after the ministry sought to deliver amended public accounts to explain and rectify the error.
Ramdass initially refused receipt, as she claimed she needed legal ad
