The Auditor General should re-examine these matters

Mar 15, 2021 Features / Columnists

Kaieteur News- When persons are placed before the Courts on financial fraud charges and are acquitted, this does not necessarily bring to an end the subject matter of their charges. A person may be exonerated on various grounds – lack of nexus, failure to prove the case or even innocence – but without resolving the outstanding question as to whether in fact sums were misappropriated or otherwise used improperly.
Many questions remain unanswered even after charges are dispensed with. Among those questions are those which relate to whether any sums were stolen, missing or financial assets dishonestly taken for personal use.
The role of the Auditor General is to generally pronounce as to whether the government accounts accurately reflect the state of public accounts. He is not a fraud investigator even though his work may detect red flags which could point to fraud. Whatever the courts may decide, the Auditor General has an interest in ensuring that public funds which are the subject of court cases are accounted for.
The Auditor General also has the authority to undertake special investigations. Where large sums are involved or where the Auditor General’s own previous audits did not detect anomalies, the Auditor General should exercise the right to conduct forensic audits of transactions, notwithstanding these matters having engaged the Courts.
There are three matters in which the Auditor General should pronounce despite these matters having engaged the Courts. There are still unanswered questions concerning assets of the State or the procurement of such assets and the Auditor General, as the protector of these assets, should provide answers to these questions.
The first of these concerns the sum of $639M which were allegedly unaccounted for by the Public Service Ministry prior to 2015. Persons were charged for larceny by public officer but were freed of these charges by the Court. The Court found that, in respect to one accused, the charges were bad in law because the person could not be considered a public officer. The other person was acquitted because no link could be established with the events and activities on which the monies were expended.
The criminal case is over but there remains to be solved the mystery as to what happened to those sums. Were they actually used for the purposes for which it is said they were used? And if not, then what happened to those sums? The Auditor General needs to investigate this matter and bring closure to this saga.
Relatedly, there remains the issue of vehicles that were alleged to have been misappropriated. The Auditor General must pronounce on this and seek an opinion as to the legality and propriety of any amnesty which would have been offered by the APNU+AFC government.
The second issue concerns the alleged misconduct which took place within the Guyana Rice Development Board and for which persons were charged and placed before the Courts for failing to enter some entry into a ledger relating to the sum of $52M which were to be for an Agriculture Life Skills programme. Three of the four persons were acquitted because the Court found that case was not made out against them. The fourth person is still before the Court.
The acquittal, however, does not answer the question as to whether the failure to enter something into a ledger – an accounting entry – meant that the monies were misappropriated or whether they were used for the purposes intended. The Auditor General should seek to assure the public that the sums were indeed used for the purposes intended.
The third matter involves the Guyana Elections Commission. It was this newspaper which had exposed controversial procurement of radio sets and pliers, among other items, in the run-up to the 2015 elections. The Auditor General’s office had red flagged this procurement and was supposed to have handed over the report into these transactions to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice. The Commission had denied any wrongdoing in the matter.
Nothing has been heard of this matter. And in the interest of transparency and accountability, this matter should be reopened.
The acquittal of persons or the failure to prosecute anyone should not result in the closure of files. Where taxpayers’ monies are involved, there need to be assurances that public funds and other assets were properly used and are accounted for.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News