Dear Editor,
I WISH to thank Mr Anand Goolsarran for his response to me in today’s (July 25, 2024) edition of the Stabroek News (SN). In his recent column, Mr. Goolsarran raised some issues concerning me in relation to conflict of interest and ethical conduct, where he made some insinuations and assertions that I addressed fully in my letter dated July 24, 2024 (SN).

Notably, in his letter, he completely ignored everything that I addressed to that end, effectively debunking his contentions. Thus, I take it that he has perhaps accepted the clarifications, explanations and corrections provided.
He focused mainly on defending his track record following the arguments I put forward challenging his conduct in relation to a number of “forensic audits” that he was contracted to carry out by the former APNU+AFC government. This, he has a right to, and I do appreciate his response.

But I must point out at the same time, that in so doing, I am afraid that he may have accidentally caused upon himself unintended self-inflicted injury to his own credibility, as demonstrated hereunder.
First, he contends that there were no breaches of the Procurement and Audit Acts. Apart from the argument that I advanced in this regard, it was none other than the Auditor General’s Report (2015; Pg 50) which established that the Procurement Act was breached, contrary to his argument.

The report stated: “The Ministry of Finance awarded 45 contracts totalling $135.576 million to conduct forensic audits for various entities. According to documentation seen, the ministry sought permission for Single-Source Procurement in accordance with Section 28 (b) of the Procurement Act from the Chairman of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) and which was approved by the NPTAB. Section 28 (b) of the Procurement Act states that the procuring entity may engage in single-source procurement when the services by reason of their highly complex nature are available from only one source. Since the ministry awarded 45 contracts to 18 consultants, including accounting firms, then the single-source method should not have been used for the award of these contracts.”

Accordingly, the Auditor General’s report concluded that “the services required were available from “multiple” sources (emphasis added) and as such, the Single-Source Method of procurement should not have been used for the award of these contracts.”
In respect of the Audit Act, Mr Goolsarran sought to argue that Section 4(2) in the Audit Act was inserted despite his objection to same.
Section 4(2) of the Act states: “…the government may cause an additional audit to be conducted by an auditor other than the Auditor General, where an agreement entered into between the government and institution so dictates.”
Mr Goolsarran is of the view that this Section in the Act conflicts with Article 223 (8) (b) of the Constitution.

Now, if I am reading and interpreting Goolsarran correctly, is he saying that because he disagrees with the insertion of a provision in the Act, that that is his justification for the flagrant violation and/or non-compliance with the Act?
Especially, more so since that would have to be an issue to be tested and ruled upon by a competent court of law. Now, if my interpretation of him is correct, then that is quite a tragedy on his part and is worrisome.
Worse yet, he then goes on to argue that the audit he conducted was not really a forensic audit, that it was more a stocktaking audit. Really, Mr Goolsarran? What nonsense is that? A stock- taking exercise or audit as he deemed it to be, is not and cannot be equated to a forensic audit.

There is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever. Furthermore, I have actually found one of the audit reports that he compiled, namely, for the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Ltd., pursuant to the subject matter contract.
The report of itself was captioned, “forensic audit.” The terms of reference in the report also confirmed that it was a forensic audit. So, for Mr Goolsarran to claim that the audits he conducted were not really forensic audits, but he was paid for forensic audits, then isn’t that akin to fraud or him being disingenuous?

The glaring contradictions as noted herein only serves to tarnish his professional credibility and integrity, thereby reinforcing my argument in my original letter on this matter; such that Mr. Goolsarran’s standard for ethical and professional conduct are vastly different to those that I pride myself in upholding.
Finally, having regard to the statement I made concerning his experience and qualifications, I merely cited what other accountants questioned at the time. This prompted him to elaborate on his qualifications and experience. For my part, therefore, I have no difficulty to voluntarily withdraw the said “cited and paraphrased” assertion.

Might I add, too, that only those who uphold the highest level of professional integrity and ethical standards would volunteer to withdraw a previous statement that was the subject of correction and/or clarification. As for his part, his reluctance to withdraw his incorrect and misguided assertions concerning me, is duly noted.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin