Dear Editor
IT had long ago been observed a new-found exuberance and vibrant line being taken by the Auditor General, with regard to his office’s findings on state accounts since 2015.

It certainly comprised an unmistakable public chiding of the relevant state authorities, which action on his part had been totally absent during his functions during the former PPP/C administration. His actions, that had to be commented on publicly by the Minister of Finance some time ago, were undoubtedly playing the political card.

Editor, it is fully understood that the Office of the Auditor General (AG) is autonomous, and therefore functions independently, as is now fully demonstrated. Surely, this government’s record has been respectful of such independence, ensuring that it is upheld. No one can dispute that the AG and his office are allowed to operate in an entirely professional manner. Except that his actions are not in keeping with his constitutional mandate. There are indeed contradictions, as pointed out by the Finance Secretary.
Memory would remind us of the many glaring findings of serious irregularity that this particular Auditor General had found during his numerous audit exercises of government accounts, during the PPP/C period of governance. Sole sourcing had been a particular regular feature, as the quoted example of the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation (NGPC) by the Finance Secretary illustrated, in addition to the huge sums that had been awarded. In fact, that agency had been the government’s chosen favourite for drug importation, especially when it was reportedly given access to pre-conditions which were denied other similar pharmaceutical agencies which those against agencies have consistently railed against.
Of course, the AG never emphasised such findings, as with the other serious ones found during the audit of government accounts during the past administration. I stand corrected by saying that despite compelling grounds and legitimate reasons for ordering police investigations in many instances – he never did. Contrast this deliberate inertia, not wanting to rock the boat, or perhaps fear of reprisals, a political staple of the government in those times, with a now pro-active official who is now pronouncing on reported issues in the media, even before he is requested to take official action.

It is clear that the Auditor General has overstepped his mark, if one is to follow the Financial Secretary’s statement, as reported in Guyana Chronicle, May 29: “Beware of bias”. The AG’s statement is indeed political, designed to play to a particular gallery. Further, his bias and subjectivity is exposed, particularly when comparing and contrasting his pattern of silence under the PPP/C administration, as against his many pronouncements these days.

The Auditor General and his office perform a most critical function. Buttressing the fact that these are protected and safeguarded by the Constitution, as reminded by the Finance Secretary. The stipulation certainly requires him to perform his duties without political influence. It is a reminder that he should heed.

Regards
Carol Mendonca