The continuation in office of Auditor General Deodat Sharma beyond the statutory retirement age of 68 has been questioned by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran and the Minister of Legal Affairs has been notified that if there is no satisfactory explanation, relief including a declaration that the office is vacant, will be sought under the Judicial Review Act.
Christopher Ram, the attorney for Goolsarran, wrote to the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall SC on July 31st setting out the concerns about Sharma’s continuation in office beyond the statutory retirement age. The pre-action letter set August 14th as the date for a response. None has been received and legal action is now expected to proceed.
Ram in his letter to Nandlall stated that Sharma attained the age of 68 years in March 2026 but continues to occupy and to exercise the functions of the office of Auditor General.
Ram adverted to a report in the Stabroek News of 1 February 2026 that Sharma had written to President Irfaan Ali requesting a two-year extension of his tenure of office.
“No announcement has been made, so far as we are aware, of any decision upon that request. No instrument, notice or publication has been brought to our attention by which any such extension was granted, or by which the power to grant it was identified”, Ram wrote.
He said that Article 223 of the Constitution establishes the office of Auditor General as a public office, and provides that the holder shall vacate that office upon attaining such age as may be prescribed by Parliament.
“The language is mandatory. Vacation occurs by operation of the Constitution upon the prescribed age being attained; it is not a matter within the gift of any person or authority.
“Parliament has made the necessary prescription by section 8 of the Audit Act 2004, which equates the office of Auditor General with that of the Chief Justice in respect of salary, superannuation benefits and other conditions of service. The age at which the holder must demit office is a condition of service within the plain meaning of that section, and is in any event the only prescription Parliament has made.
“The Chief Justice is required to demit office upon attaining the age of 68 years, by Article 197(2A) of the Constitution.
“It follows that the age prescribed by Parliament for the purposes of Article 223 is 68 years”, Ram wrote.
He stated that neither the Constitution nor the Audit Act 2004 confers upon the President, the Public Service Commission, or upon any other person or authority, a power to lengthen the tenure of the Auditor General beyond that age.
Ram averred that if approval had been granted, then it was done without lawful power, for an improper purpose, and without any publication or transparency whatever, and is liable to be quashed.
Ram told Nandlall that on behalf of Goolsarran he was seeking to confirm in writing the following:
(a) whether any approval, extension, re-appointment, or other authorisation of Sharma’s continuance in the office of Auditor General beyond March 2026 has been granted;
(b) if so, by whom, on what date, and in what form;
(c) the specific provision of the Constitution or of any Act of Parliament under which the power to grant it is said to arise;
(d) whether the Public Service Commission tendered advice in the matter; if so, the terms of that advice and the date on which it was tendered; and if not, the basis upon which it is said that the holding of the office may be continued without it, Article 223 requiring the President to act in accordance with the advice of the Commission in respect of the office; and
(e) the findings on the material questions of fact, the evidence or other material on which those findings were based, and the reasons for the decision.
Ram further requested copies of the instrument of approval and of any submission, memorandum or advice upon which it was founded.
The attorney also set out the relief being contemplated under the Judicial Review Act in default of a satisfactory response.
These are:
(a) a declaration that Sharma vacated the office of Auditor General upon attaining the age of 68 years;
(b) a declaration under section 18(1)(b) that the office of Auditor General is vacant;
(c) an injunction under section 18(1)(a) restraining Sharma from acting in the said office;
(d) in the alternative, an order of certiorari quashing any purported extension or approval.
Nandlall was advised that he and Sharma would be the intended respondents in any ensuing action.
A separate letter was sent to Sharma notifying him of the intention to challenge his continued occupation of office.
In his accountability column of February 9th 2026 in the Stabroek News, Goolsarran had said that there was no constitutional or legislative provision for the extension of the retirement age of the Auditor General.
“As such, the President should decline Mr. Sharma’s request and advise that he proceeds on retirement. At the same time, urgent steps should be taken to amend the Audit Act to include: (i) qualification and experience requirements for the Auditor General; (ii) limitation of tenure of appointment; (iii) the involvement of the PAC to ensure that the best candidate is recommended; (iv) approval of the Assembly via two-thirds majority; (v) agreement of the Leader of the Opposition on the name of the recommended candidate to ensure compliance with Article 127 (1) of the Constitution; and (vi) appointment by the President. It is our sincere hope that the new Auditor General with be appointed after following the above procedures”, Goolsarran stated.
Discussion