THE Government has backtracked on its decision to launch an investigation into the conduct of Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass as part of a wider probe into the $2.6 billion understatement in the country’s 2023 financial accounts.
The Office of the Attorney General announced yesterday that pursuing that aspect of the investigation would provide no further information on what led to the understatement, given that the investigative committee has since completed its final report “which helpfully discloses what went wrong and satisfactorily explained the understatement”.
Lead attorney: Anand Ramlogan, SC
In a media release, the AG’s Office stated that Cabinet has since commenced consideration of the committee’s findings and is satisfied that its report has adequately identified the contributing factors to the revenue understatement “and provided recommendations to strengthen the financial oversight and, will be receiving from the Minister of Finance a Note with suggestions and recommendations”.
The release, however, did not reveal exactly when the report was completed, nor did it state what the findings were.
It stated that given the contents of the report, it no longer wished to investigate Ramdass’s conduct or further participate in judicial review proceedings brought by her against the Ministry of Finance and the Cabinet.
“Given the developments, the Cabinet has determined that the continuation of proceedings in CV2024-01720 Jaiwantie Ramdass v Minister of Finance and The Cabinet of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago will not further inform the issues already addressed by the Investigative Committee’s findings, while incurring further legal costs and Judicial time while these proceedings are ongoing.
“Accordingly, the Cabinet has taken the decision not to proceed further with the Terms of Reference referred to above pertaining to the Auditor General,” the release stated.
‘Journey for justice’
Minutes after the AG’s Office issued its release, Ramdass’s lead attorney, Anand Ramlogan, SC, issued a statement of his own, saying he and the rest of the Auditor General’s legal team will carefully assess the terms of the Government’s concession to determine whether it amounted to appropriate vindication of her rights.
“Whilst this addresses her claim for judicial review, it does not address her other claim for the breach of her constitutional rights, and we therefore anxiously await the Government’s position in respect of that matter in which Ms Ramdass claimed she was a victim of bullying, intimidation and harassment,” said Ramlogan.
He noted Ramdass had sought declarations from the court that her fundamental right to protection of the law was violated.
She was also seeking an award of damages for those breaches, he pointed out.
“We are interested to know whether the Government will also defend that matter all the way to the Privy Council or whether this concession equally applies to her constitutional claim.
“Given that both cases are still before the courts, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on these matters. We however congratulate Ms Ramdass on her resounding legal victory and are pleased to be of service to her in her journey for justice,” Ramlogan stated.
The accounts
The impasse first began in April last year after the Finance Ministry sought to deliver amended public accounts to the Auditor General to explain and rectify the financial error.
Initially, Government’s revenue was understated to the sum of $3.4 billion, but later reduced by the ministry to $2.6 billion.
Because the statutory deadline to provide the financial records was January 31, Ramdass had refused to accept the amended public accounts when the ministry sought to deliver it to her office in April.
She was given the first set of accounts for 2023 prior to the deadline date, which was audited, but not yet delivered at the time when the ministry sought to deliver the second set, that were allegedly backdated.
Even though Ramdass initially refused to accept the updated accounts, her office eventually did so after being issued a pre-action protocol letter. In her judicial review claim, Ramdass is contending that she felt bullied into accepting the amended accounts.
While the second set of accounts was audited, Ramdass stated that her audit team was unable to reconcile the increase in revenue reported by the ministry.
On May 7, Finance Minister Colm Imbert announced the appointment of the investigative team to probe the understatement, and about a week later Ramdass’s attorneys approached the High Court seeking permission to file judicial review against the decision to launch the probe against her.
They argued before Justice Westmin James that neither Imbert nor the Cabinet had the powers to investigate the Office of the Auditor General.
The following month, however, the judge refused the application, stating Ramdass’s claim would have an unrealistic prospect of success if it were allowed to proceed.
The judge added the Auditor General had failed to convince the court that Imbert was being biased towards her when it came to the appointment of the investigative team.
Further to that, the judge also stated that under Section 116(6) of the Constitution, which insulated the Auditor General from being under the direction and control of any other power or authority, could not apply to investigations such as the one ordered by the Cabinet.
The decision of Justice James was eventually appealed. During that hearing, Douglas Mendes, SC, lead attorney for the Ministry of Finance and the Cabinet, said his clients had decided to not move ahead with the aspect of the investigation as it related to Ramdass once the matter was still before the court.
The three-judge panel eventually ruled in favour of Ramdass and set aside the findings of Justice James.
This, in turn, led to Imbert and the Cabinet further appealing the matter to the Privy Council.
On November 7, however, after Mendes completed two hours of submissions, Lords Hodge, Sales and Stephens, Lady Rose and Lady Simler briefly stood down the proceedings.
When they returned a few minutes later, Lord Hodge said the panel did not find it necessary to hear from Ramlogan, before dismissing the State’s appeal, clearing the way for Ramdass to file the judicial review claim.
The written ruling was delivered in January. Just as they did during the actual hearing, the law lords questioned in the judgment why Imbert himself was not a subject of the investigation, given that the financial records provided to Ramdass came from the Finance Ministry.
On December 6, the judicial review claim came up for hearing before Justice Joan Charles, who had given directions to attorneys on both sides for the filing of written submissions, and indicated she had the intention of delivering her ruling in the matter on May 12.
Appearing alongside Ramlogan for Ramdass were attorneys Ganesh Saroop, Kent Samlal, Natasha Bisram, Aasha Ramlal and Kate Temple-Mabe.
