We’ve been down this road before. The Public Accounts Committee which was constituted on June 15 has been unable to begin work because its four scheduled meetings to date have been cancelled. According to Committee Chairman Vishnu Panday the reason for the cancellation was the fact that the PPP/C representatives were unavailable.
If this all sounds like a familiar story, then it should. During the last Parliament the inability to constitute a quorum because the government members on the Committee had sent their apologies became a constant refrain. As a consequence the primary work of the PAC could not be discharged with the level of dispatch necessary to keep a meaningful eye on government spending.
The Public Accounts Committee is the oldest of the standing parliamentary committees, and in concert with the Auditor General is the main constitutional instrument for governmental accountability. It has nine members, four from the opposition and five from the government, and under the rules is chaired by the opposition, in the current instance by WIN’s Mr Panday.
Prior to April 2022 the quorum required was the same as that for all the other parliamentary committees (the Management Committee excepted), namely, three, but in that year the government used its majority in the House to pass a motion increasing the number to five. These have to include two members from the government side as well as two from the opposition, in addition to the Chair.
In and of itself the increase in the number required for a quorum and the rules about how it should be comprised should not have been a problem. It only became one because in the last Parliament the government utilised the new arrangement to have meetings aborted. Mr Panday has said that Committee records show that between 2021 and 2025, 51 meetings were scheduled but only 26 held. The cancellation of 25 others came about mostly because government members were unavailable.
The other impediment to the work of the Committee has been the fact that the government has included two Ministers in its complement, the same ones, in fact, as in the last Parliament. The first is Minister of Governance Gail Teixeira and the second is the Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill. This allowed them in the past to claim that they were very busy and were not always available for PAC meetings.
When asked why they could not be replaced by ordinary members, the response was that their experience was needed on the Committee. If that is still the excuse for not replacing them, it can only be said it would leave the undesirable impression that ordinary PPP/C MPs lack the competence to govern. Surely the government does not want to suggest that they are incapable of learning what is required to enable them to examine accounts of expenditure? If so, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
This is quite apart from the fact that as Mr Anand Goolsarran has pointed out on more than one occasion, Minister Edghill is in a potential conflict-of-interest situation since his ministry is responsible for infrastructure, which accounts for a large quota of government funds.
The most important function of the PAC is to scrutinise the report of the Auditor General. After reviewing his conclusions and interviewing any officials where necessary, it then submits its own report of findings and recommendations to the National Assembly. Thereafter the government issues a Treasury Memorandum where it states what action has been taken in response.
It does not take much imagination to see how the full process of overseeing the government accounts can be stymied by delaying the meetings of the PAC. What happens in such circumstances is that current expenditure escapes scrutiny and a backlog builds up. And a large backlog there most certainly is. Mr Panday has said that the last Auditor General’s report to be fully completed by the PAC was for the year 2018, which leaves 2019-2024 still awaiting attention. At the Committee’s current pace, he said, it could take years to clear.
There are ways, of course, in which clearing could be done, and Mr Goolsarran has made suggestions in this regard, citing the case of the ten-year backlog between 1981 and 1991 when the full Committee examined the current accounts, and a five-member sub-committee dealt with the backlog.
In addition, based on historical trends, he said, it took more than a year to complete the review of the public accounts for one year. If a sequential approach is followed then the Committee would be five to six years in arrears. His proposal is, therefore, that instead of dealing with the reports paragraph by paragraph, the PAC might consider examining issues across ministries, departments and regions. The starting point for this might be the executive summary of the Auditor General’s report.
In the last Parliament the Ministers on the Committee alleged that the opposition members were trying to skip over the accounts of the Coalition, although how that was prevented from happening by cancelling meetings was not immediately apparent. What it did do was slow down the pace so the first year when the government entered office – 2020 – was never reached for consideration.
As questions mounted about the failure to meet quorums. the government members thrashed around for excuses, the most bizarre, perhaps, coming from Minister Edghill. He asked, “Is the frequency of PAC meetings a means of topping up parliamentary allowances for opposition members, by filing claims for transportation and other expenditure? Perhaps the Parliament Office should make public the expenditure incurred by PAC members for attendance.” It is hard to think of a more effective way for him to reveal the government’s true motives in relation to the Committee.
So here we are in 2026 looking at what APNU PAC member Mr Ganesh Mahipaul has called a “pattern”. He said: Instead of facilitating parliamentary oversight, the Government appears intent on delaying scrutiny and frustrating accountability.”
If the government wishes to disprove that statement, it is not difficult. First, it has to ensure at least two members from its side religiously attend all PAC meetings. Second, it should move its two busy Ministers off the Committee and replace them with ordinary MPs. And third, it should work with the other members to devise a means of clearing the backlog and keeping the work up to date. There is nothing particularly challenging about that; what it requires is a will.
The government claims it is committed to transparency and accountability, but if it reprises its behaviour in relation to the PAC of the last Parliament it will be providing proof of the opposite.
Discussion