Errors upon errors

THE CLASH between Minister of Finance Colm Imbert and Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass has widened, seriously undermining confidence in not only once-sacrosanct budget statistics, but also governance.

Mr Imbert has been Minister of Finance for eight years. No more dramatic challenge to his viability in the post has arisen. He wishes to bring the conduct of Ms Ramdass into question, but he, too, is under scrutiny.

While the minister’s signature might not be affixed to financial documents that feature in this commess, it is his name that was on the purported motion passed by Parliament to adjust the timeline for the submission of audited accounts last month.

Mr Imbert, on April 29, told the Senate Ms Ramdass, in a missive she was forced to pen in response to a pre-action protocol letter sent to her by the Government, had possibly issued “a blatant untruth” when she stated ministry certifications sent to her earlier this year in relation to the accounts appeared to have been unethically backdated to January 31.

“From what has been shown to me, this statement of declaration and certification of the amended public accounts is dated April 16, 2024, and not January 31, 2024, as falsely alleged in the letter from Freedom Law Chambers,” Mr Imbert said then.

But by May 9, at a post-Cabinet briefing, a different story emerged.

“A copy of the previous statement of declaration and certification dated 31st January, 2024, which had been included in the original public accounts submitted to the Auditor General on that date, was also inadvertently included in the amended public accounts delivered to the Auditor General on the 15th April, 2024,” Mr Imbert said.

What was shown to the minister prior to his making his statement in Parliament on April 29?

Was the fact that this copy was wrongly sent withheld from him?

Or was that yet another error by unnamed officials?

If the latter, it would be the third significant mistake in this sorry affair.

The first was the Treasury’s reported understatement of revenue by $2.6 billion.

The second would be the “inadvertent” inclusion of irrelevant, seemingly backdated documents on April 15.

Is this how billion-dollar budget affairs are being run in the ministry?

Meanwhile, it might be that the decision to issue a pre-action protocol letter to the Auditor General was another error.

We are accustomed to meddlesome ministers in this country seeking to compel obedience.

However, given the sensitivity of the independent post held by Ms Ramdass, why did the Government – who this week remained tight-lipped on its assessment of the top cop – not show similar restraint?

Why did it not simply allow the Public Service Commission or relevant disciplinary tribunal to do its work, if it had legitimate cause to lodge a complaint?