The AOG is not the investigative arm of any authority

Apr 11, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) holds a vital role in overseeing procurement processes, including investigating irregularities, and proposing necessary remedial actions. These are powers consistent with the need to ensure accountability and transparency in public procurement.

However, a report recently emerged in which a senior officer of the Public Procurement Commission is reported to have said that a complaint had been referred to the Office of the Auditor General for investigation. But why the Auditor General?

The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) has no authority to refer any such investigation to the Office of the Auditor General OAG). Article 223 of the Constitution provides for the independence of the Office of the Auditor General. It states that, “In the exercise of his or her functions under this Constitution, the Auditor General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.”

When an entity is described as not coming under the direction or control of any individual or authority it signifies its independence from external influence. This independence ensures that the entity is free to exercise its functions, make decisions, and carry out its responsibilities autonomously, without being subject to the directives or interventions of any particular person or authority.

This principle was upheld in the Marcus Bisram case wherein the Caribbean Court of Justice held that: “The relevant constitutional and legislative framework permits the DPP to exercise her functions in an independent and autonomous manner, similar to that of the Auditor General, who is also a public officer not subject to the direction or control of anyone else.”

Referring a matter to the Auditor General, presumably for investigation, effectively amounts to subjecting the OAG to the direction of an authority. The OAG is not the investigative arm of the government or any other authority. The powers of the OAG to undertake special investigation does not arrogate the right of any authority to refer the need for investigations to the OAG.

The only reason why a government department or other agency should be referring any matter to the Auditor General is for information purposes. It would up to the OAG to decide whether that office needs to undertake its investigation consistent with its functions under the Constitution and the audit laws. This is strictly the prerogative of the OAG. No agency or authority should be referring any matter to the OAG calling for any investigation.  Any such request impinges upon the independence of the Auditor General.

The Office of the Auditor General undoubtedly holds an important role in auditing the public accounts of government and ensuring compliance with the country’s financial regulations. Its independence from governmental influence is enshrined within the Constitution. This enshrinement is not symbolic but is intended to preserve the integrity of the work of the AOG from being tainted with accusations that acts under the direction of government

The argument against the PPC referring complaints to the Auditor General revolves around the notion of the AOG acting at the behest of another authority, something strictly prohibited by the Constitution.

The PPC should develop the capability to investigate complaints independently. In so doing, it will safeguard its autonomy and enhance its ability to foster greater transparency and accountability within public procurement.

The PPC’s mandate encompasses the investigation of irregularities and mismanagement. To fulfill this mandate effectively, the PPC must possess the capacity to conduct independent investigations promptly and efficiently. Relying on the Auditor General for investigative purposes could impede the timely resolution of procurement-related issues, thereby compromising accountability and hindering the delivery of public services.

The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) can opt to devolve, refer, or delegate its investigative duty to others. But it should not do so to the OAG

The frequency and nature of complaints in public procurement vary widely, ranging from minor disputes to systemic irregularities requiring thorough investigation. It is neither practical nor efficient to burden the Office of the Auditor General with procurement-related complaint, especially when the PPC should possess the expertise and mandate to address such issues independently.

Relegating the investigative authority to the Auditor General overlooks the specialized knowledge and experience that the PPC would have accrued in the area of public procurement. Leveraging this expertise enables the PPC to conduct targeted investigations tailored to the specific nuances of procurement-related complaints, thereby ensuring more effective outcomes and informed remedial actions.

The PPC comprises individuals with a diverse range of expertise and competence, equipped to conduct thorough investigations independently or to engage external entities for assistance when necessary.

By now, it was expected that the PPC would have established a robust internal investigative capability for handling the majority of complaints internally. With its mandate to oversee procurement processes and ensure compliance with regulations, the PPC has had ample time to cultivate expertise and resources necessary for effective investigations. Only highly technical or specialized matters, which require highly specialized expertise, should necessitate outsourcing for investigations.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• accountability, authority, investigative, Peeping Tom, Public Procurement Commission (PPC)

---