Anand Goolsarran and Christopher Ram should not conduct these audits

Jul 05, 2015 Letters

Dear Editor,
The criticisms that have surfaced about the engagement of Anand Goolsarran and Christopher Ram to perform audits of government agencies should not be ignored by those who hired them. A convincing argument can be made that these two auditors are not qualified to perform the special role for which their services have been sought. This has nothing to do with their competence and experience as auditors and everything to do with their credibility.
Impartiality in the fullest sense is the most important quality an auditor must possess, if his findings and conclusions are to be trusted. Any affiliation or circumstances that create the appearance of bias should have been enough to cause the auditor to refuse the engagement.
These are not concerns for which the leaders of our APNU/AFC coalition should have a dismissive attitude. These concerns have merit. An audit is essentially a non-audit if the impartiality of those persons engaged to do it is not above suspicion.
It is now common knowledge that the same government agencies which are now the subject of the forensic audit have been the targets of relentless criticism by these well known gentlemen. They have raised allegations of impropriety. These facts clearly suggest they have a vested interest in protecting their reputation and in proving that the allegations they have made are not unfounded. The appearance of bias clearly cannot be missed.
If these two auditors are allowed to continue their work into agencies they have criticized, it would undoubtedly be the case that they would be conducting unethical audits. Government officials would have acted irresponsibly in not exercising due diligence when contracting persons to provide audit services.
Goolsarran and Christopher Ram ought to know what is required of them.
These exacting standards that apply to auditors have a parallel in the legal profession, especially as regards to judges.
For those who may not remember, the year was 1998, and a case involving General Augusto Pinochet of Chile was working its way through the London courts.
General Pinochet was arrested and detained in London on allegations of genocide and other human rights abuses. The immediate matter concerned his extradition to Spain to be put on trial.
Presiding in the case on appeal was Lord Hoffman who it was later revealed had ties to Amnesty International, one of the parties in the case.
Although no one could establish any actual bias on the part of Lord Hoffman, the appearance of bias was sufficient to cause the decision of the court to be set aside.
Auditors have the same burden. The mere appearance of bias should be enough reason for them to step aside. They should do so voluntarily.
Wesley Hicken

Latest News

Anand Goolsarran and Christopher Ram should not conduct these audits

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

EBDCA/D&R Construction 40-Over Cricket Competition continues

GFF announces final squad for Concacaf U-17...

Cricket West Indies announces exciting 2025...

BCA, GCB to attend CWI meeting on February 9

Bolstered Harpy Eagles eyeing perfect home record...

Hockey PAHF Junior Challenge schedule released

Features/Columnists

What Guyanese leaders can learn from Donald Trump

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

VP Jagdeo on PPP comrades benefitting

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Anand Goolsarran and Christopher Ram should not conduct these audits

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]