This is my third article on the above subject in an attempt to set the record straight as it relates to the history of public accountability in Guyana from December 1987 onwards, amid persistent attempts to rewrite the said history and distorting what really happened during this period.
Recap of the two previous articles
At the time of my appointment as Auditor General at the end of 1990, the last set of audited accounts of the country was in respect of 1981. This was due to the failure of the then government to submit for audit draft financial statements constituting the public accounts. Notwithstanding this, preliminary audits were conducted for all Ministries, Departments and Regions covering the period 1982 to 1990, and the related reports were held in abeyance pending the submission of the draft financial statements.
In the absence of the financial statements referred to above, I took the view that the results of these preliminary audits should be presented to the Legislature. The Government, however, vigorously opposed this view, although Section 32 of the Financial Administration and Audit (FAA) Act permitted the Auditor General to transmit a special report on any matter incidental to his powers and duties under the said Act, if it appeared to him to be desirable. I then sought a legal opinion in June 1991 from the then Attorney General, the late Keith Massiah, which opinion stated that: (i) I had an obligation to report to the National Assembly not later than of 30 September every year and failure to do so will constitute a breach of the Act; and (ii) the non-submission of financial statements did not exempt me from reporting to the Assembly.
Within five months of the Attorney General’s ruling, I was able to compile and issue to the Assembly the preliminary reports for the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. Following the presentation of the first report, the late Mr. Yesu Persaud had the following to say as regards the state of public accountability at the time:
Very often, ineffective and inefficient management results because they are men for the jobs rather than jobs for the men. If the country is going to emerge from the morass, the discredited system of employment based on nepotism and patronage must be replaced by one in which merit is the determining factor…
Accountability, at all levels, is indispensable in a democratic and free society and should be so from the highest to the lowest. For example, [public] Corporations have been making losses year after year and management have not been asked to account for their stewardship. Indeed, ironically, instead of being fired, they have been promoted to higher office. This, of course, gives encouragement to inefficiency, mal-administration and abuses. If our economy is going to turn around, let me repeat, there is ABSOLUTE NEED to find the MAN FOR THE JOB and not the other way around:
Accountability is an indispensable element of Democracy, of Government and Business; it is indispensable to Civilisation, for a country which runs without accountability is not a civilized nation and an unaccountable person is also an uncivilized person. Accountability is an essential ingredient in any programme of economic recovery and development.
For his part, Mr. Fitzpatrick wrote as follows:
LAST WEEK, I dared to suggest that if one had to name Person of the Year for 1991, there was someone other than Messrs. Collins, Hoyte or Jagan who could be so nominated. He is our new Auditor General Anand Goolsarran. Having waited in the wings for some time, he assumed that position on the retirement of his predecessor. And suddenly we began to hear of government departments being called to account. Called to account? By someone other than the comrade leader? Who he? …
The problem was, of course, that there weren’t all that many public “books, records, returns or other documents” available in the Guyana of the 1970’s and 1980’s!
Mr. Goolsarran therefore has to make a lot of noise about the absence of proper documentation in the public accounts and to do so he had to cover the previously non-audited years by a series of special reports.
He pulled no punches.
And suddenly once again Guyanese began to expect the government to keep accounts and to produce them when necessary.
To my mind this has been the single most important development in 1991. For years we have been developing a culture on unaccountability. Unaccountability in politics, because the government elected itself. Unaccountability in public finance, because the government kept few vouchers and was audited by no one.
The Catholic Standard editorial dated 19 August 1991 captioned “Checking the Books” commented that the late President Hoyte deserved much credit ‘for moving to clear up some of the financial mess that had accumulated over the past 26 years’ and that my appointment was a heartening development. The editorial went on to state that my willingness to respond to queries from the media as well as my openness to discuss the role of the Audit Office were indeed a welcome development and was likely to instill some measure of confidence, especially from the business community. It concluded that the public ought to know how their funds were being administered and wished me every success in my efforts to ensure public accountability.
In October 1991, I wrote to the Minister of Finance, outlining the problems associated with the Government’s financial management and making several recommendations. I proposed a two-pronged approach to restart financial reporting, with 1991 as the cut-off year. The other key recommendations were:
(a) Close all government bank accounts and open new ones with effect from 1992 to avoid any contamination from the backlogged years. Most of the bank accounts had not been reconciled for several years and some of them were heavily overdrawn, including the Consolidated Fund bank account. The minimum number of accounts should be used.
(b) Institute proper systems and procedures to ensure accurate recordkeeping and reconciliation, and to facilitate timely, reliable, and accurate financial reporting for the future, commencing 1992.
(c) Set up a task force to deal with the backlogged accounts covering the period 1982 to 1991.
The Accountant General had estimated it would take approximately six months for each of the backlogged years to be finalized. In other words, it would have taken until 1997 to bring the backlogged accounts up to date, by which time the current year’s accounts would have become backlogged by four years, hence the recommendation for a two-pronged approach. Although the Minister of Finance accepted these recommendations, they were not implemented despite strenuous efforts by the Audit Office to get the Ministry of Finance to do so. The Catholic Standard of 20 October 1991 under the caption “Draw Line, Start Afresh: Auditor Tells Minister”, captures the results of the meeting with the Minister.
In an article appearing in the 10 September 1991 issue of the Stabroek News under the caption “PPP urges Auditor General to seize records”, the party claimed that government financial records could “disappear” if the ruling PNC loses the upcoming elections. Accordingly, it appealed to the Auditor General and the police to seize and “quarantine” the documents. The party further stated that the Auditor General and the police must ‘make selected pre-empted investigations and commandeer financial records’.
Attempts to audit Government’s privatization programme
Around the same time, the then Administration had embarked on the privatization of certain State agencies. According to media reports, the programme was conducted too hastily and too secretly, and State assets were disposed of at give-away prices. The Catholic Standard editorial of 1 September 1991 under the caption “WHY DEALS IN SECRET”, had the following to say on the matter:
[The Guyanese people] fear the ruling party, desperate to earn American dollars to bail itself out of a huge economic rut, may be selling out state property at give-away prices and on extremely favourable terms to the buyers…
We need a new attitude of openness and accountability, on the part of the Government, such as the present Auditor General has shown in his department, in order to allay fears, now widespread, that the country is being sold down the drain.
Accordingly, there were calls for the Auditor General to audit the Government’s privatization programme. When I announced my intention to do so and began to request a variety of information, senior government functionaries were very unhappy and refused to cooperate. Apparently, they had complained to the Minister of Finance since they believed that I did not have the authority to audit the programme and that I was acting beyond my mandate. The Minister, in turn, must have discussed the matter with the President who summoned me to a meeting with him. At that meeting, I stated, among others, how frustrated I was that he had appointed me Auditor General and draft financial statements constituting the public accounts were not presented to me for audit. His response was that we were all in the same boat and that he has had his fair share of frustration. He then said that the Minister would write to me in relation to my attempts to audit the privatization programme.
The Minister did write to me asserting that I was creating confusion by requesting information on privatization and that in future I must not make any public statement of matters under his portfolio without his permission. He also claimed that I did not have the mandate to audit the Government’s divestment programme and that his view was supported by the Attorney General. I responded to the Minister by stating that: (i) the proceeds of privatization are public revenues which have to be paid over to the Consolidated Fund in accordance with Article 216 (now 217) of the Constitution; (ii) the Auditor General is the auditor of the Consolidated Fund; and (iii) by Article 224 (1), in the exercise of his duties, the Auditor General shall be under the direction or control of no person or authority.
And in an article appearing in the 23 February 1992 issue of the Stabroek News under the caption “WPA backs Goolsarran’s move on divestment deals”, the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) was reported to have stated that it fully supported my move to assess the divestment deals. The WPA added that its efforts to have a Select Committee of the Assembly established to oversee the deals were rejected by the ruling PNC and that my move was ‘timely, correct and responsible’.
The Stabroek News editorial of 17 March 1992 captioned “Auditing for the people” commented as follows:
Now it seems, and is, a huge blessing – and a minor miracle – that we have an Auditor General who is actually doing his job of general auditing. He is exerting pressure to turn over a new leaf dealing with financial reporting in 1992, to tackle separately the backlog of financial reporting for ten years, and to exercise his powers of audit over divestment deals. And he is not, thank heavens, afraid to publicise his concerns. All he is doing is, quite simply, fundamental to good order in the body politic. Let us watch with the greatest care what happens. If obstacles are not put in his way, if feet are not interminably dragged, then it may be we are in a real era of cleaner, more efficient, less corrupt government. But if…well, let us wait and see.
Just before the run-up to the 1992 elections, Dr. Jagan, then Opposition Leader, visited my office. We discussed several issues regarding my position as Auditor General. I told him that I was preparing to resign but he advised me against doing so because, according to him, change was coming.
Aftermath of the 5 October 1992 elections
In November 1992, that is, one month after the change of Administration, I wrote to Minister of Finance Asgar Ally apprising him of the status of public accountability and of my recommendations as to the way forward. The letter was a follow-up to an earlier meeting I had with him at which meeting the Minister had agreed in principle with my recommendations for a restart of financial reporting of the public accounts with effect from 1992.
Around the same time, I also approached the Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), the late Dr. Roger Luncheon, to solicit his support for my recommendations. He then summoned a meeting with Accountant General and me at which meeting the Accountant General insisted that: (i) it was unprecedented to have financial reporting for later years without the availability of financial reports for earlier years; (ii) opening balances were needed to restart the process; (iii) it would take approximately six months to prepare the draft public accounts for each of the backlogged years; and (iv) my proposal, if adopted, would result in inaccurate financial reporting. The HPS then enquired what level of accuracy would be achieved if my recommendations were to be followed. The Accountant General’s response was that it would be in the order of 60-70 percent. The HPS’s reaction was: Would it not be better to have such a level of accuracy than not having financial reporting at all? The Accountant General fell silent!
Discussion