Goolsarran and Ram can produce an impartial audit

Jul 06, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In response to Mr. Wesley Hicken’s ill-advised opinion, “Anand Goolsarran and Christopher Ram should not conduct these audits,” KN, July 5, 2015, permit me to make a few judicious observations.
First, Messrs. Goolsarran and Ram, more than any other person or persons in Guyana, have spent more time informing and educating Guyanese about many of the financial shenanigans of the deposed, corrupt PPP regime.
I may even say that, judging from the volume of information on his chrisram.net website, Mr. Ram may have done more than Mr. Goolsarran, but it is their collective analyses of the facts and figures obtained from the annual Auditor-General’s reports and other investigations that helped denude the PPP as a criminally corrupt entity while in government.
And since neither Mr. Hicken nor anyone of substance ever successfully refuted their analyses, done in the public interest, then neither Mr. Hicken nor anyone should deny them the right to engage in conducting audits, in the public interest,  that no one else seemed willing to do during or after the PPP’s reign. Has anyone else said, “Hire me for the job as an auditor.”?
Yes, these gentlemen were critical of the regime, but their constructive criticisms were founded on facts and figures produced by the same corrupt regime. They had their fingers on the pulse of the public purse. And rather than change or initiate remedial actions, as per the promptings of these two gentlemen and even the Auditor-General, the corrupt cabal simply dug in and engaged in more barefaced financial irregularities.
I am truly floored by the audacity of anyone who seems more concerned about Messrs. Goolsarran and Ram conducting audits than about the mountain of financial irregularities previously uncovered, being uncovered and still to be uncovered in relation to the PPP’s mishandling of the nation’s finances, assets and resources.
Second, I do not recall Mr. Hicken or anyone objecting to an offer by former Agriculture Minister, Mr. Robert Persaud, for Mr. Ram to audit GuySuCo’s books. Did Mr. Hicken ever write criticizing Mr. Persaud for not seeing Mr. Ram could have believability issues as an impartial auditor?
Mr. Persaud’s offer, carried in an article by Kaieteur News, “Christopher Ram accepts Minister’s challenge to audit GuySuCo,” May 26, 2011, stated that Mr. Ram literally accepted the offer and Kaieteur News’ owner, Mr. Glen Lall, then offered to use his personal finances to pay for the audit “in the interest of transparency, accountability and decency in any public administration where public funds are involved.”
Not surprisingly, the PPP regime pulled the plug on the offer, according to another news article, “GuySuCo flip-flops on forensic audit – Hides behind AG,” (KN, June 15, 2011). It turned out that the excuse given by then GuySuCo CEO, Mr. Paul Bhim, (the same man the coalition regime pulled out of hibernation to help provide temporary leadership of GuySuCo) for the cancellation of the offer was that Auditor-General, Mr. Deodat Sharma, did not approve of the audit. But we all knew that was a sham, because as Mr. Ram correctly observed, at the time “the minister responsible for finance could request the Public Accounts Committee to cause an additional audit to be conducted by an auditor other than the Auditor-General.”
That brings me to my third point. Mr. Sharma, when asked about government’s recent decision to contract out the audits to Messrs. Goolsarran and Sharma, basically exposed Mr. Bhim and the PPP regime as bald faced liars when he said the Ministry of Finance has chosen to do independent audits. “They will not be using our services. They want to do it independently. I guess they want to show that it is going to be more credible that way. It is not like the Audit Act restricts them to using us.” Did Mr. Hicken read anywhere that Mr. Sharma objected to Messrs. Goolsarran and Ram being appointed auditors of state entities?
My fourth and final point returns to address the issue of whether Messrs. Goolsarran and Ram can produce impartial audits given their past criticisms of the PPP government. Mr. Editor, the government belongs to the people of Guyana and not the PPP, so past criticisms were leveled at the PPP’s failed stewardship of the government.
With the PPP out of power, the government, as a body, continues to exist, so if the new party that has custody of government wants to hire anyone, including critics of the former ruling party, there is no rule, rhyme or reason why such critics should not be hired. Matter of fact, the biggest critic of the criminally corrupt PPP regime is APNU+AFC, and it was hired by 51% of the voters to unmask and undo the misdeeds of the PPP, so why is Mr. Hicken or others of his ill-informed thinking not taking the APNU+AFC coalition to task?
As long as Messrs. Goolsarran and Ram follow standard auditing procedures and principles pertaining to audits, they can produce an impartial audit. And if they do not adhere to strict auditing procedures and principles, they risk having their work audited by others or, worse: they risk being censured or disciplined by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana, whose primary responsibility includes ‘regulating the conduct of its members and students’.
According to the Praxiom Research Group, ‘an audit is an evidence gathering process. Audit evidence is used to evaluate how well audit criteria are being met. Audits must be objective, impartial, and independent, and the audit process must be both systematic and documented’. So, even if an auditor wants to be biased, s/he will be caught by the system or other auditors. Now, let the audits continue unhindered!
Emile Mervin

---

---