The new PAC must break with the past and take its responsibilities seriously to protect public resources

‘The essential fact is this Committee is a Committee of the House responsible to the House as a whole and is not a battleground for party faction…I believe it is true to say that the authority of the Committee is greatly enhanced by its unanimous character, and I hope the complete objectivity of its report. It is fair to say that many Honourable Members of both parties have made great endeavours and have sometimes sacrificed personal views to ensure that this shall be so’.

The late Sir Harold Wilson, Chairperson of the UK PAC (1959-1963)

Last Monday, the National Assembly approved of the nine-member Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to scrutinise the country’s audited public accounts as well as all other accounts that the Assembly referred to the PAC for consideration, as provided for by Standing Order 82 (1):

There shall be a Standing Committee to be known as the Public Accounts Committee to consist of not less than six (6) or more than ten (10) Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection as soon as may be after the beginning of each National Assembly. It shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by the Assembly to meet Public Expenditure and such other accounts laid before the Assembly as the Assembly may refer to the Committee together with the Auditor General’s report thereon.

Despite the above requirement, it took eight months for the nomination to be made after the first session of the new Parliament convened on 3 November 2025, raising important questions as regards the seriousness of the Administration to discharge its financial stewardship responsibilities in the use of public resources. The new members are, for the PPP/C: Juan Edghill – Minister of Public Works, Gail Teixeira – Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs, Vishwa Mahadeo – Deputy Speaker, Suresh Singh and Sanjeev Datadin; for the WIN party: Vishnu Panday- Chairperson and Nandranie Singh; and for the APNU: Juretha Fernandes and Ganesh Mahipaul.

In our last week’s column, we drew attention to the undesirability for sitting Ministers to be on the Committee because of possible conflict of interest, especially when the PAC scrutinizes the accounts of the Ministries and Departments for which they are subject Ministers. The Auditor General would also be hard-pressed to be as critical as he would like to be of a Ministry or Department, knowing full well that the subject Minister is on the Committee. We have not been able to find any jurisdiction under the Westminster system of government where a sitting Minister is a member of the PAC, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and the English-speaking Caribbean. The Assembly’s Committee of Selection should therefore review its recommendation for the two concerned Ministers sit to be on the Committee, also considering their portfolios as Ministers are such that they may not be able to devote the required amount of time as regards the work of the PAC.

There are two other responsibilities that are vested constitutionally/legislatively on the PAC. The first relates to its role in identifying and recommending to the Assembly five persons to sit on the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). The second is the oversight role the Committee plays in relation to the work of the Audit Office, including approving the work plan and budget of that office and the ratification of senior appointments.

Now that the PAC has been fully constituted, it is time for it to get down to the task of scrutinizing the public accounts and other related reports. In today’s article, the discuss the role of the Committee in the public accountability cycle and the extent to which there has been compliance with the above requirements.

Scrutinising the public accounts and reporting to the Assembly

On several occasions we have stated that public accountability does not end when the Speaker of the Assembly tables the report of the Auditor General. There are two important additional steps to be completed to ensure that the accountability cycle is completed – the PAC’s examination of the public accounts and reporting back to the Assembly in relation to its findings and recommendations; and the issuing of a Treasury Memorandum within 90 days, setting out the actions the Government has taken or proposes to take in relations to those findings and recommendations. In principle, the accountability cycle ought to be completed within 12 months of the close of the fiscal year to enable legislators to review the results of the execution of the previous year’s budget before consideration of the next budget. As it stands, legislators are approving the country’s annual budget without knowledge of how the amounts allocated in the previous year’s budget have been expended, with due regard to economy, efficiently and effectiveness, and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and circular instructions.

The PAC’s scrutiny of the public accounts and reporting back to the Assembly is now six years in arrears. Table I shows the trend in the Committee’s examination of and reporting on the public accounts since the restoration of public accountability in 1992:

Table I

Trend in the PAC examination of and

reporting on the public accounts:1992-2024

Considering the above, the new PAC needs to adopt a different approach to its scrutiny of the public accounts in order to close the gap and bring its work up-to-date. As we did in the case of the ten-year backlog in financial reporting and audit of the public accounts covering the period 1981 to 1991, the Committee may wish to adopt a similar two-pronged approach. This involves the full nine-member PAC examining the 2024 audited public accounts, that is, the latest available accounts, while a five-member sub-committee deals with the backlogged years 2019-2023.

The rationale for this approach is that based on historic trends, it took more than a year for the PAC to complete its examination of one year’s public accounts. This means that if the Committee adopts a sequential approach, as it did in the past, the PAC’s scrutiny of the public accounts will continue to be in arrears by five to six years. Additionally, rather than going through paragraph by paragraph, the PAC should consider examining issues across Ministries, Departments and Regions. A convenient starting point is the executive summary of the Auditor General’s report which highlights several major issues such as overpayments to contractors; breaches in the Procurement Act; short-supply of drugs and medical supplies; overdraft on the Consolidated Fund; failure to pay over unspent balances to the Consolidated Fund; and keeping cash books open beyond the stipulated time and drawing cheques and backdating them to exhaust budgetary allocations.

Identifying and recommending members of the Public Procurement Commission

Article 212X(2) of the Constitution provides for the PAC to nominate five persons to serve as members of the PPC, which nomination has to be approved by at least two-thirds of the voting members of the Assembly. Although the Constitution is silent on the procedures to be followed, in principle, there should be a system involving public advertisement, shortlisting of candidates, conducting of background checks, and interviewing, before a recommendation is made to the Assembly.

It is unacceptable for the Committee to ask the ruling party to nominate three persons, and the opposition, two persons, so as to gain easy passage in the Assembly. That this was done for the two past commissions, is no justification for this practice to continue. Considering that members of the PPC are required to have expertise in procurement, finance, law and general administration, as well as for them to be independent, impartial and fair in the discharge of their responsibilities, provide a compelling argument for the PAC to adopt an open, transparent and competitive approach in its nomination of members of the PPC. We must also note that for nearly one year there has been no Commission in place, the life of the last Commission having ended in July 2025.

To be continued