By Prior Beharry
OPPOSITION Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar has condemned Attorney General Reginald Armour and state attorney Douglas Mendes in the wake of a failed appeal at the Privy Council, which aimed to block Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass from pursuing judicial review proceedings.
The Privy Council dismissed Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s appeal on Thursday, allowing Ramdass to continue judicial review proceedings in the High Court of the decision by Imbert to set up an investigative team to probe a reported $2.6 billion understatement in the government’s revenue for the 2023 financial year.
In a scathing statement, Persad-Bissessar said, “After wasting the court’s time for two hours, the finance minister’s appeal was thrown out. The fact that the case was thrown out before the state’s eat a food attorney Douglas Mendes could even finish his submissions is a testament to the garbage that he was spewing to the court.
“Mendes and AG Armour should hang their heads in shame but they seem to have none.
“This was a public humiliation and repudiation by the court to highlight the incompetence of these high priced PNM-affiliated attorneys on whom taxpayer dollars are wasted on.
“The fact remains that this government cannot account for almost three billion dollars.”
The controversy began in April, when the Ministry of Finance had submitted amended public accounts that initially understated the government’s revenue figures, first reporting a sum of $3.4 billion, later revised to $2.6 billion. The statutory deadline for submitting these accounts was January 31, and Ramdass was presented with the first set of accounts, which had been audited but not submitted, when she was informed of the significant understatement.
On April 16, the ministry sent a second set of accounts, which Ramdass’s office initially resisted accepting due to concerns over their validity. Legal threats prompted her to accept the amended accounts, but her audit team later reported they could not reconcile the newly reported increase in revenue. This discrepancy was detailed in an audit report submitted to Parliament.
In May, Imbert announced an investigative team led by retired judge David Harris, tasked with examining Ramdass’s response to the amended accounts and her audit findings. Ramdass’s legal team, led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, subsequently sought permission for the court to review the appointment of the investigative team, arguing it was biased and unconstitutional.
While Justice Westmin James initially denied Ramdass’s application in June, the Appeal Court later overturned this decision, allowing her to pursue her challenge and halting the investigation into her conduct.
Imbert and the Cabinet challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision and this appeal was thrown out by the Privy Council on Thursday.
See related story below:
Who made the decision to appeal at the PC . One would expect a decision like this would have been deliberated by Cabinet so the Cabinet legal advisor, the AG ands the two newly minted SCs would have had an input to debate and determine the likelihood of success. It appears not because Colm made the call for an immediate appeal by the state when the local CA ruled in favor of The Auditor General. The fact that the PC ruling was swift and the PC did not ask the Auditor team to make submissions tells me the State Appeal to the PC was without merit and the it’s chances of success was like a snow one in hell. The question arises what was the state underlying agenda? Was it to embarrass the Auditor General or was it to benefit the “eat ah food lawyers”“particularly the newly minted SCs or the Cabinet abandoned their fiduciary duties to to prudently managed taxpayers monies. More importantly how long will we tolerate a government that continue to misappropriate taxpayers monies . Time is near ….we need to vote them out