During the handing-over of his 2025 report on the audit of the public accounts, the Auditor General was asked about his extension of service by two years, having attained the retirement age of 68 last March. His response was that the question should be directed to the President. It was the Auditor General who requested the extension of service, and given the importance of his office, he owes a duty to the public to explain the rationale for his request. The failure to do so has resulted in speculation as to the real reason for his request.
Is it because the Auditor General is desirous of receiving a tax-free pension equivalent to his closing salary which is expected to be around $2.5 million and a gratuity close to $100 million? Several years ago, the Auditor General received an amount of $36.1 million as advance on gratuity presumably because that he had opted for early retirement but apparently had a change of heart. In the circumstances, he should have refunded the amount of gratuity received. It is also unclear as to the basis of computation of this amount. There is now a second change of heart. In response to a letter dated 11 March 2025 from the Auditor General, the Secretary of the Public Service Commission indicated that the Auditor General would proceed on retirement with effect from April 2026.
The Auditor General’s position is equated to that of the Chief Justice in terms of salary, superannuation benefits and other conditions of service. This includes the requirement for each year’s service to be counted as two years for pension entitlement, as provided for by Section 7(b) of the Pensions Regulations. Judges, including the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, are required to demit office on attaining the retirement age of 68 in accordance with Article 197 (2) of the Constitution, and the maximum pension payable must not exceed two-thirds of the official’s closing salary in accordance with Section 12 of the Pensions Act.
By Section 7(2A) of the Pensions Regulations, a judge may be allowed to continue in office for a limited period after attaining the retirement age, for example, where it is necessary to conclude a very important case before demitting office. When this happens, the official may be granted a pension computed after taking into account the entire period of service rendered whether or not the pension payable exceeds the limit of two-thirds of his/her final salary. However, the pension granted must not exceed the highest annual rate of salary payable to the official, while the amount of gratuity remains the same as computed at the date of retirement. It is unclear whether this section can be used as a basis for the Auditor General’s extension of service, and if so, the special circumstances that justifies the extension.
If the Auditor General had demitted office upon reaching the retirement age of 68, his pension would have been restricted to two-thirds of his closing salary. I have seen the computation of his superannuation benefits as set out in a document dated 25 March prepared by the Accountant General’s Department and verified by a junior officer in the Audit Office. The computation, however, uses the Auditor General’s full salary instead of two-thirds. Similarly, his advance on gratuity was calculated using his full salary instead of 75 percent. Is it therefore a case where the Auditor General has realized the mistake and opted for an extension so that he can receive a greater financial benefit?
The Auditor General has so far served 21 years in the position, having been appointed to act in the position in January 2005 and confirmed in October 2012. This is at a time when many countries are placing term limits for their heads of National Audit Offices in order to enhance and preserve their independence from the Executive. For example, the Canadian Auditor General’s tenure of office is ten years, while in South Africa the Auditor General serves between five and ten years. In India and Pakistan, the tenure of office is six years and four years, respectively, or on attaining the age of 65 whichever comes first. In all the above cases, appointments are non-renewable. The draft Audit Act had included a restriction to the tenure of office of the Auditor General to ten years. Unfortunately, this provision, along with qualification requirements, were removed when the final legislation was passed in the National Assembly in April 2004.
The chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee questioned the Auditor General’s extension of service and the apparent absence of succession planning in the Audit Office. He also stated that there appears to be no provision for the Auditor General to remain in position beyond the prescribed retirement age and that he is concerned about the additional costs to taxpayers. Two other Opposition Members of Parliament have raised similar concerns, including the Auditor General’s apparent cozy relationship with the Government.
Another suggestion is that the extension might be to give coverage to the continued undesirable situation that exists between the Ministry of Finance and the Audit Office. The next in line in the Audit Office is a professionally qualified accountant with an advanced degree and 20 years’ experience among senior management in that office. However, the difficulty in having her appointed Auditor General is that her husband is the Minister of Finance who is required to certify the public accounts of the country before presentation to the Auditor General for auditing. Several knowledgeable persons had publicly argued that this arrangement presents a significant conflict of interest and for which the Government took no remedial action.
Now for today’s article. Section 67 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act requires the Minister of Finance to present to the National Assembly within 60 days after the end of the first half of each fiscal year a report on the year-to-date execution of the annual budget and the prospects for the remainder of that fiscal year. Also to be included in the report are the following:
(a) An update on the current macroeconomic and fiscal situation, a revised economic outlook for the remainder of the fiscal year, and a statement of the projected impact that these trends are likely to have on the annual budget.
(b) A comparison report on the out-turned current and capital expenditures and revenues with the estimates originally approved by the Assembly with explanations of any significant variances.
(c) A list of major fiscal risks for the remainder of the fiscal year, together with likely policy responses that the Government proposes to take to meet the expected circumstances.
During a meeting of the Economic Services Committee of the Assembly held recently, the President spoke about the performance of the economy for the first half of 2026. This prompted us to check the Ministry of Finance’s website where we found the 2026 Mid-Year Report. It is dated 28 August 2026 but according to Chartered Accountant and Attorney-at-law Christopher Ram, it was only released on 14 September 2026. It is important to note that the report is required to be presented to the Assembly within the 60-day period to enable the Legislature to consider it and to take appropriate action to bring actual performance in line with planned performance in the event that there are significant variances, or if this is not possible, to adjust the budget to a more realistic level.
To the extent that the report is yet to be tabled in the Assembly by virtue of the fact that Assembly is in recess and is not expected to reconvene until after 9 October, the law has not been fully complied with. That apart, by this time the Assembly reconvenes it will be too late for legislators to consider the report. Additionally, in the past, there was no discussion or debate on the report in the Assembly, which is a significant shortcoming in our system of public financial management and accountability. In previous articles on the subject, we had suggested that the Minister consider presenting to the Assembly future Mid-Year Reports at the end of July. It seems inappropriate for the Assembly to spend approximately three weeks every year to consider draft National Budget before approving it but the half-yearly results on its execution is not made available to them in a timely manner. In this regard, we renew our suggestion.
Real GDP growth
An overall real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 33.3 percent was recorded for the first half of 2026, compared with 7.5 percent for the corresponding period last year, an increase of 25.8 percent. This was mainly due for the first time to the simultaneous operation of the four Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading vessels (FPSOs).The non-oil economy grew by 10.1 percent, compared with 13.8 percent in the first half of 2025, on account of construction, services, and mining. The overall real GDP growth for 2026 is estimated at 20.8 percent, while non-oil growth is projected at 10.2 percent.
Sectoral performance
The agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector contracted by 0.5 percent in the first half of 2026. This was attributable to lower output in the other crops subsector on account of above-normal rainfall. The sugar growing subsector nevertheless expanded by 19.3 percent, compared with the first half last year, with the Guyana Sugar Corporation producing 19,031 tonnes of sugar in the first crop of the year. However, production was hampered by heavy rainfall, labour shortages, and poor cane quality. Growth is projected at 18.1 percent for 2026, with a revised production target of 70,401 tonnes of sugar.
The rice subsector expanded by 4.4 percent and is projected to grow by 2.8 percent by the end of the year. Similarly, the livestock, fishing and forestry subsectors grew by 17.5 percent, 4.1 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively. The other crops subsector, however, contracted by 6.4 percent due to above normal rainfall.
Extractive industries
Overall, the mining and quarrying sector grew by 40.7 percent, with the oil and gas industry expanding by 41.3 percent. It is projected to grow by 24.2 percent by year-end. The bauxite mining subsector also expanded by 7.3 percent and is projected to grow by 10.2 percent by year-end. Additionally, the gold mining subsector expanded by 11.3 percent and is projected to grow by 5.4 percent by year-end.
The other mining and quarrying subsector grew by an estimated 40 percent, with sand and stone expanding by 61.7 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. The subsector is estimated to grow by 14.9 percent this year. The manufacturing sector grew by 3 percent and is projected to expand by 10.7 percent in 2026; while the services sector also expanded by 7.2 percent and is expected to grew by 7.7 percent this year. Additionally, the construction sector expanded by 24.7 percent and is expected to grow by 27.6 percent this year.
– To be continued –
Discussion