We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
Greek philosopher Plato
Kiskadee Watch reported last week about the President’s warning that accountants who engage in public policy debates while advancing political agendas risk undermining public trust in the profession. Addressing participants at the annual Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Caribbean conference held in Guyana, the President urged the accountants to distinguish between professional advice and political advocacy. He contended that accountants who offer opinions influenced by political interests should openly declare those affiliations; and that the failure to do so could be considered a breach of professional ethics. The President further stated that when accountants become politicians, they must make it clear that they are no longer accountants.
The President did not identify which accountants in Guyana or for that matter, the rest of the Caribbean, are involved in the above-mentioned practice. Suffice it to state that accountants provide professional accounting, auditing and consulting services to their clients mainly in the private sector. In none of these services do they make commentaries on public policy, nor do they seek to promote any political agenda during the course of their assignments, otherwise their engagements will be terminated.
Additionally, it is unreasonable to suggest that an accountant who becomes a politician should renounce his/her status as an accountant. Surely, the President is aware that there are at least two Ministers of the Government who are Chartered Accountants. Did they renounce their membership of their professional bodies? And what of lawyers, doctors and other professionals who are Cabinet members and/or Members of Parliament? Why single out accountants?
Preparation and auditing of the public accounts
Section 73 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act requires the Minister of Finance who is a Chartered Accountant, to prepare the consolidated financial statements constituting the public accounts of Guyana and submit them to the Auditor General for audit. The Minister along with the Accountant General sign these statements. The Minister’s spouse, also a Chartered Accountant, is an Audit Director and second in charge in the Audit Office. There are also several cases of familial relationships within the Audit Office. Additionally, one must note that the Auditor General is not a professionally qualified accountant, his only qualification being a bachelor’s degree in accounting from the University of Guyana.
Section 8 of the Audit Regulations made under the Audit Act requires all staff members to adhere to the Conflict of Interest Code and to take the Oath of Professional Conduct. The failure to do so by persons who may be viewed to be in a position of conflict of interest has the potential of the Audit Office compromising on the quality of the audit and the extent of audit coverage.
Article 223 (7) of the Constitution provides for an annual systems and financial audit of the Audit Office to be undertaken. However, there is no evidence that the systems audit part is being undertaken. This is an important review procedure to ensure that the Audit Office complies strictly with the provisions of the Audit Act, its related Regulations, and the Audit Office’s Rules, Policies and Procedures Manual, considering the enormous powers vested in the Auditor General. It is also not clear how the auditors are selected to undertake the assignment. These are matters that should be of concern to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
Some areas in dire need of review
Instead of making the misguided statements such as the above, it would do well if the President were to take a serious look at several areas in the operations of government that do not reflect good governance practices and/or lack of the desired level of transparency and accountability. These include: the functioning of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), the Integrity Commission and the Office of Commissioner of Information, and the PAC. In relation to the NPTAB, the chairperson who has been in place since 2020, is a senior Finance Ministry holding two full-time positions. It is public knowledge that major contracts are awarded to individuals and entities who/which do not meet the criteria set out in the solicitation documents, and there have been significant breaches in the Procurement Act.
Currently, there is no PPC in place since the life of the last Commission expired in July 2025. The way members are selected does not make for the Commission to act independently, free of political influence and control, as envisaged by the Constitution. By Article 212W (2), ‘[t]he Commission shall be independent, impartial and shall discharge its functions fairly’. The Integrity Commission is content on publishing the names of persons who have not filed their financial returns with the Commission. There is no evidence that the returns are meticulously scrutinized to ensure that they are consistent with the lifestyles of the individuals involved nor is there evidence of prosecution of defaulters. Adherence to the Code of Conduct contained in the Integrity Commission Act also appears to have escaped the attention of the Commission. Additionally, the chairperson of the Commission is the spouse of a former Minister of Home Affairs under the PPP/C Government.
There is no access to information on government programmes and activities under the Access to Information Act since the Office of the Commissioner of Information appears not to be functioning. Additionally, since the appointment of the Commissioner in 2013, no annual reports were tabled in the National Assembly, as required by the Act. The PAC is now six years in arrears in terms of its scrutiny of and reporting on the public accounts. Efforts to bring its work up to date is being stymied by the failure of government members to attend meetings of the Commission.
The Auditor General has been in the position for the past 21 years and should have retired three months ago, having attained the age of 68. The President has, however, recently approved an extension of his retirement age by two years. The Auditor General’s position is equated to that of the Chief Justice in terms of salary, superannuation benefits and other conditions of service. All judges, including the Chief Justice, are required to demit office on attaining the retirement age of 68. However, the Pensions Act and related Regulations allow a judge to continue in office for a limited period after attaining the retirement age in circumstances, for example, where it is necessary to conclude a very important case before demitting office. It is unclear under what circumstances the President granted an extension of service to the Auditor General.
Interestingly, around the same time that the Auditor General’s request for extension of service was made, both the President and the Auditor General spoke gloriously about the work of the Audit Office, especially as regards the supposed improvement in public financial management, reduction in the number of audit recommendations made, and improvement in the rate of implementation of the said recommendations. As indicated in a previous article, based on my analysis, the opposite is true. It would appear that the statements made by the President and the Auditor General about the work of the Audit Office were an attempt to justify the latter’s extension of service.
Was there a breach in professional conduct rules for accountants?
The President did not identify which aspect of the professional conduct rules governing the work of accountants precludes an accountant to hold political views or from becoming a politician. The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants’ Code of Ethics and Conduct contains no such provision. In the circumstances, it is baffling to understand what the President was thinking when he made the above statements. Perhaps he was referring to Chartered Accountant and Attorney-at-law Christopher Ram and this columnist, neither of whom is associated with any political party.
For my part, my commentaries are not made in relation to any professional services that I render but rather in my capacity as a civil society activist. By doing so, there is no risk that public trust in the profession is adversely affected nor is there any breach in professional ethics. These commentaries examine governance, transparency and accountability, and where there are shortfalls or deficiencies vis-à-vis constitutional, legislative and regulatory provisions as well as contractual obligations, I identify them, assess their implications for the country and make appropriate recommendations for remedial actions. This approach has absolutely nothing to do with advancing political agendas. In all my writings, I place the country’s interest at heart above all other interests, and I do so as part of my civic duty, considering my professional background. I am indifferent as to which government is in office, as any objective and neutral observer will note by reviewing my writings over the last 14 years.
Protection of freedom of expression
Article 146 of the Constitution provides for the protection of freedom of expression, subject to certain safeguards regarding national security and personal privacy, among others:
Except with his or her consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference and freedom from interference with his or her correspondence.
Considering the above, the President’s statement may be viewed as an attempt not only to stifle well-deserved criticisms of the Administration but also to further narrow civil society space and participation in the affairs of the country.
‘Them versus us’
Unfortunately, in Guyana, as the saying goes, ‘you are either with us (the ruling party), or you are against us’, and by extension, in the case of the latter, you are with the political opposition. There is hardly any recognition that there are other players who have a legitimate interest in the governance arrangements of the country. These include civil society organisations and the media both of which are under tremendous pressure from the Authorities when they speak out or report on issues relating to bad governance, and lack of transparency and proper accountability. Individuals from these two groups as well as other groups more often than not are singled out for personal vilification and character assassination. It is indeed regrettable that there is hardly any recognition of the contribution persons who stand on independent ground can make to the affairs of the State by virtue of their professional and technical training and experience.
Finally, the work of several watchdog agencies are compromised in some way or the other since they are staffed by political loyalists or persons closely associated with the ruling party. Professional and technical competence as well as proven track record of performance are no longer criteria for appointment and promotion to higher positions. This is the sad reality of the situation in Guyana!
Discussion