OPPOSITION Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar today called for an independent investigation into Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s conduct following the government’s recent defeat at the Privy Council in its dispute with Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass and the Cabinet stopping the Probe into Ramdass.
The Cabinet has officially halted the investigation into Auditor General regarding her role in handling a controversial misrepresentation of revenue in the national accounts. The decision was communicated on Friday by the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Legal Affairs via a release.
Persad-Bissessar described the government’s legal defeat as “a blot on our democracy,” accusing Imbert of attempting to “intimidate, harass, and bully” Ramdass.
She said, “The dramatic hearing in the Privy Council has been followed by every single citizen who saw the British Law Lords grilling the government’s lawyers on the issue of political bias.”
Persad-Bissessar said that Lady Ingrid Simler, one of the Privy Council judges, openly questioned why Imbert himself was not under investigation, given his responsibility for the Ministry of Finance where the discrepancy occurred.
“The Auditor General should never have been the subject of investigation by the government because she did absolutely nothing wrong,” Persad-Bissessar said, adding that Ramdass “refused to allow the government to rush her office and turn a blind eye to the missing billions.”
Persad-Bissessar alleged Imbert made “personal telephone calls” to Ramdass, describing these as “a clear attempt to unduly pressure and influence her in the performance of her duties,” and “a calculated assault on her independent office.”
She called the government’s investigation as “biased” and “half-baked,” pointing out that Imbert himself drafted the investigation’s terms of reference, selected the investigators, and ordered the committee to report directly to him.
“In circumstances where Mr. Imbert’s conduct and integrity have been called into question, this reeks of bias and political ‘smart-manism,'” Persad-Bissessar said.
The Opposition Leader questioned the government’s inability to clearly account for the missing revenue—originally estimated at $3.4 billion, and subsequently revised down to $2.9 billion—and condemned its attempts to force Ramdass to ignore the discrepancies.
She demanded that Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley and Minister Stuart Young immediately launch an independent investigation into Minister Imbert’s involvement in the revenue understatement, and to determine exactly where the billions in taxpayers’ dollars have gone.
Persad-Bissessar also challenged Attorney General Reginald Armour and Minister Imbert to disclose how much taxpayers’ money was spent on legal fees, airfare, and accommodation related to the Privy Council appeal.
“That money could have been used for the public’s benefit—to patch potholes, buy hospital beds, and medication,” she said.
Background: How the Dispute Unfolded
The disagreement between Ramdass and the Ministry of Finance surfaced in April last year, following the ministry’s submission of amended public accounts to explain a reported $2.6 billion revenue understatement. Ramdass initially refused to accept the amended records, citing the need for legal advice given that the statutory deadline had passed.
After eventually receiving the amended records, Ramdass dispatched audit staff to verify them but later submitted her original report to Parliament based on the initial records. She maintained that her team could not reconcile the amended accounts and accused the ministry of backdating documents, a claim strongly denied by Finance Minister Colm Imbert.
Minister Imbert attributed the discrepancy and subsequent revisions to technical issues stemming from the Central Bank’s switch from manual to electronic cheque clearing systems. He further clarified that the variance of approximately $780 million was due to tax refund cheques cashed in a different financial year than originally recorded.
Imbert had initially criticized Ramdass for refusing the amended accounts and accused her of acting illegally but later opted against taking legal action. He agreed to lay both the original and a special clarifying report in Parliament, although Ramdass continued to express similar concerns about the amended records.
Legal Battle and Privy Council Decision
Ramdass subsequently filed a judicial review lawsuit challenging Imbert’s decision to include her role in the investigation and questioning the fairness of the probe. After an initial refusal by the High Court, the Court of Appeal allowed Ramdass to continue her case. The Cabinet then escalated the matter to the UK Privy Council, which ultimately dismissed the government’s appeal last November.
Lady Ingrid Simler, delivering the Privy Council’s judgment, criticized Imbert and Cabinet colleagues’ handling of the matter, suggesting that public confidence might have been better served had a full judicial review hearing proceeded. She expressed concern that the Minister appeared closely involved in establishing and overseeing the investigation, raising questions about its impartiality.
Justice Joan Charles, assigned to hear Ramdass’ judicial review lawsuit, reserved May 12 to deliver her judgment. However, following today’s Cabinet decision, the continuation of legal proceedings specifically involving Ramdass seems unlikely.
